- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 19:27:26 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
If you want to follow up off list I think that it is important to make it very clear that you are *not* doing so in your capacity as a member of the WG, never mind as chair of the WG. I agree with whoever said that we should avoid getting into a debate with here about subjective judgements. Ian On 5 Mar 2009, at 15:48, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Bijan Parsia > <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 5 Mar 2009, at 15:28, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> [snip] >>> >>> I completely agree about the need to let these be represented. The >>> question that Marijke raises isn't about that but about how we >>> document the feature. >> >> I didn't derive that from her email. I think Jim is right that >> we'll need >> more documentation, but I thought her point was the change the >> name (or make >> the feature functional). Neither of those seem ideal. > > Changing the name would be what I consider along the lines of > documentation. Not that I'm passing judgement on the merit of doing > so. Just noting that I don't see a call for removing the ability to do > what you describe. While she did suggest making hasKey functional I > considered that an attempt to have the name align with what her view > of the semantics are, not as a statement that the functionality you > suggest isn't desirable. > > In any case, I'll follow up and get back with what I find. > > > -Alan > > >> >> Cheers, >> Bijan. >> >
Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 19:28:17 UTC