- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
- To: ivan@w3.org
- Cc: schneid@fzi.de, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> Subject: Re: LC responses 28, 48 & 58 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:31:08 +0100 > Hi Peter [...] >> LCCR 58 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MH1 mentions OWL 2 >> Full, but only generically. The paragraph >> >> In addition to the API implementation advantages you alluded to, there >> will also be an important benefit in allowing OWL structures (i.e., >> the UML diagrams) to also capture most OWL Full ontologies and thus to >> act as generic representation for the OWL language and not just for >> OWL DL ontologies. We have introduced a new Document Overview and >> substantially revised the Structural Specification and >> Functional-Style Syntax document in order to make this clear. >> >> could be removed and still be responsive. >> > > I am not sure that is actually necessary. The text is sufficiently > general to stay as is in my view. > > Ivan [...] Someone wanted to block 58 on OWL Fullish grounds, and removing the paragraph should remove the block. peter
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 10:17:18 UTC