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

I guess there is a major misunderstanding here.
I am not by any means against the current spec.
I am just proposing to have a very simple *additional* part.
Gathering opinions in favour of the current spec does not say anything against my proposal.

On 5 Dec 2010, at 15:15, Kendall Clark wrote:

> 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 <> 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 14:24:43 UTC