Re: Primer Review

From: Sebastian Rudolph <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Subject: Re: Primer Review
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 05:59:45 -0500

> 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. I guess, if  
> we were to say what current documents replace what earlier OWL 1  
> documents this should perhaps be done uniformly in the Overview? Thus,  
> we would like to refer the decision on that to tonight's telco.

I think that references to the old document set are only distracting,
and that the wording in the Primer concerning changes that points to
NF&R is more than adequate.

>> what is the plan for the issues with sections 9 and 10?
>> 10 is linked to the issues with the profiles document as well.
> Actually they have already been adressed as well (see the bottom of  
> our response email, where you can also fnd the corresponding diffs).
> 
> With best regards
>     Sebastian
> 
>> unfortunately i am not able to be on the telecon today but it would  
>> be useful to have an email about the plan to address my comments on  
>> section 9 and 10.
>>
>> thanks,
>> deborah

peter

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 11:22:22 UTC