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

Let be me more clear, then: we support the spec as-is, without the
additional part that Enrico is proposing.

Cheers,
Kendall
--
Need to schedule a meeting w/ me? http://tungle.me/kendallclark



On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> 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.
> --e.
>
> 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 <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 15:04:29 UTC