Re: Ill-typed vs. inconsistent?

On 15 Nov 2012, at 22:20, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Also, nobody in 2004 objected to the current scheme with quite Richard's degree of persistence :-)

I didn't even *object*, I just wanted to know why it was done that way ...

Glad to hear that there would be an acceptable way of making it work. I'm still a bit worried about consequences for OWL.

Best,
Richard

Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 14:35:39 UTC