- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:34:49 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bijan 1. Could you please provide us with the expected text to complete the Keys section see: Ed Note(CG) something about class scope; something about multi-keys [Perhaps using the reusing key scenario] ? 2. Sorry for the delay of response, find below more details about the "format" issue that you had raised. As said in the general email I hope that the changes for the UC section now better addresses your concerns. * I had carefuly checked the format (and content) of table [1] ("that you provided in november 2008 to "show a format for the use cases that you liked" - before closing your Action early november." In fact, this table provided as an example was a table from OWLED 2007, if I don't mistake, which content and format were difficult to exploit as it for NF&R. Netherheless the 2 tables provided in section 3 of NF&R have a quite similar format (transposing lines and columns) and flavor. * We have also separated the UCs bibliography, specific to the UCs, from other references, which is indeed better. It stands now in the UCs Appendix. * It has also been discussed in the WG, though I really cannot remember when and even if it’s recorded, that having 'dynamic' UCs was not really possible or perhaps not wished. Furthermore, we had also discussed it with the chairs off-line, quite a long time ago, that it was not realistic or fruitful to make changes that would require to re-read all the OWLED series papers and summarize them, specially at this stage of advancement. * We have also insisted in present version that the given UCs are illustrative (used to illustrate a specific feature of OWL 2) and that they are only a few among many that motivated the extensions, to prevent any confusion. In conclusion, I hope that given those changes, having only tables in section 3 of NF&R in the main documen with hyperlinks to an Appendix as agreed at the Mandelieu F2F makes the job. Though it is not exactly what you had ideally wished, it does not seem so far. [1] "In other words, I'd rather have something closer to: <http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pTmcCXR-dV6TdDo24Tse-fQ>" Chrisine -- Christine
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:35:24 UTC