- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:52:20 -0400
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Boris, You wrote; > Thus, even if someone might thing that the definitions from XML Schema are odd > or broken, the brokenness is not in our court, and we have undertaken measures > to fix it (via examples). Should anyone think that this brokenness absolutely > must be corrected, probably the best course of action would be to submit a LC > comment to the XML Schema WG. I disagree. Broken is broken and I think this brokenness absolutely must be corrected. If you think that we should work this out with the XML Schema group, that may be an option, but it's may be better to not add a dependency on an issue that we're not certain we can resolve and instead fix it so that it's not broken in OWL. -Alan
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 06:52:59 UTC