- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:15:07 -0500
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
We're happy w/r/t the spec (in pertinent part) as it is. Cheers, Kendall On Dec 5, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > [snip] > >> Since we're hearing a pretty strong mixed opinion from the OWL implementers >> on this list, are there other implementers that we can talk to to ask which >> of these two approaches they'd prefer? > > I talked to a couple of people at ISWC and also before at the DL > workshop or when I visited other universities. Enrico is the only > person I have talked to who is stongly against the current spec. > Several people are for the way the current spec is defined and some > seem to have no strong preference or a slight preference for one or > the other. I assume we could organise a teleconf on this topic and > invite OWL folks via the OWL mailing list to participate, but also the > public working drafts are announced on the list and so far nobody saw > the need to comment on this. Anyway, I am happy to do whatever can > help to move forward with the spec. > > Birte > >> thanks, >> Lee >> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 > Computing Laboratory > Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3QD > United Kingdom > +44 (0)1865 283520 >
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 14:14:06 UTC