Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
• To: sandro@w3.org
• Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20090310.101203.129915424.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:37:40 -0400

> 
>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>> Subject: Response draft for Jan Wielemaker JR8-2/54 (was draft responses for 
>> LC comment FH3/29)
>> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:19:19 +0100
>> 
>> > Based on the email discussion yesterday I have made a draft for a
>> > possible (separate) answer to Jan:
>> > 
>> > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/JR8-2
>> > 
>> > I hope this summarizes the discussion.
> 
> Can we just remove the long paragraph which mentions TriX?  I think I
> already made the case for why its argument is false, but I'll repeat it
> if someone wants.

Please do so.  I don't remember anyone falsifying the claim that triple
serialisations of OWL ontologies are not unfriendly to XML tools.

> I'd also take out "genuine" and the remaining "extremely".

Fine.

> With those changes, I think it's okay.
> 
>      -- Sandro

peter

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 14:11:33 UTC