Re: LC responses 28, 48 & 58

I am not sure who that someone is (I know, I could dig it out on the
list but I am lazy:-); removing it does not do any harm indeed.

Ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf