On 4 May 2012, at 12:45, Ivan Herman wrote: > On May 4, 2012, at 13:39 , Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> On 4 May 2012, at 12:34, Ivan Herman wrote: >> [snip] >>>> New features are explicitly allowed. So we don't even have to get into what "feature" means. It's explicitly allowed. >>> >>> Sorry, you are right. But it also says: >>> >>> "For the fourth class of change (new features), W3C must follow the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation." >> >> As I acknowledged below: >> >> "Clearly not, afaict. We could do that, of course. We would have to have a nominal LC, CR, and PR, though these are frankly, to my mind, ridiculous." > > Sorry, missed that. No worries! [snip] >> BTW, Can we add comments to the Functional Syntax as requested? I think that would be useful as well :) > > Sorry Bijan, I am not sure I understand what you ask. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2012Feb/0000.html So we have an inconsistency in the spec. One section suggests that there are comments (#comment) in the FS, but the grammar does not contain such a production and implementation therefore don't support it. However, it's a tiny change. Is this a new feature? Or would this just be a conformance shift? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 11:49:27 UTC