Re: Proposed change to the OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime

On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:34, Enrico Franconi wrote:

> On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:40, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Not at all. You think wrong.
> I guess that you implicitly admitted that *as a theoretician* the answer would be yes :-)
> A bit radical here. What about the OWL2-QL and OWL2-EL communities?
> Interesting argument.
> LOL.
> The benefit is to allow, for example, OWL2-QL people to work using a standard as opposed to work by inventing their own syntax.
>> Can you put me in contact with them? Mediated communication isn't very efficient.
> Ah, so you don't trust me.

I'm not very happy with the way you are conducting this email conversation, but that's a bit orthogonal.

If you would prefer to convey questions from me to people then we can do that. It's a bit more time consuming and less fluid, but could be done. I'm still interested in talking with such people regardless of the group outcome. I suggest, if this is the case, that we take that part off list. I can summarize when done.


Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 15:48:32 UTC