- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:50:00 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 16 Mar 2009, at 06:52, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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. Regardless of that, it isn't broken, so the point is moot. You may not like it, which is fine. But there's nothing technically wrong with it, as I have pointed out. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 08:50:33 UTC