- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:15:27 +0100
- To: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Cc: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 20 May 2009, at 11:59, Sebastian Rudolph wrote: > Dear Deborah, > > Am 20.05.2009 um 12:28 schrieb Deborah L. McGuinness: > >> thanks for the updates. i notice that >> 1 - the references list still needs to be updated to include all >> of the documents referenced. > That's true, we will address this by tonight. > >> 2 - my comment 5.1 got in but 5.2 did not and should. > Personally we are agnostic about having that in there, but just as > a general question: is it good practice to hint to "old" OWL > documents? If we got the OWL 2 WG spirit right, the documents are > mostly intended to be stand-alone and not refer to former OWL 1 > documents. This is my strong feeling as well. Documentation should be future looking. If the vast majority of users of the document over the lifetime of the document are not new users then there's a more severe problem. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 11:11:40 UTC