W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > December 2004

RE: [All] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:23:54 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF05C78384@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <joint-committee@daml.org>

We have an informal convention for that case: we would use [OEP,ALL]
indicating that it is OEP-specific, but may be of interest to all

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:34 PM
To: Uschold, Michael F
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org; joint-committee@daml.org
Subject: Re: [All] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft

Yes. Then comments from the outside might be not be seen by the
appropriate
WG members.

peter


From: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Subject: RE: [All] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:20:22 -0800

> Good point. The convention I refer to was agreed by the working group
to
> make it easy to use filters to read about only the task forces of
> interest.
> You could not have known this.
> 
> I suggest we consider adding some instructions somewhere so that
> reviewers are aware of this convention.   Are there any disadvantages?
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:23 PM
> To: Uschold, Michael F
> Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org; joint-committee@daml.org
> Subject: Re: [OEP] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft
> 
> 
> Not according to the instructions in the document, not that I exactly
> followed them! 
> 
> 	This document is the First Public Working Draft. We encourage
> 	public comments. Please send comments to public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> 	[archive] and start the subject line of the message with
> "comment:" 
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> From: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
> Subject: [OEP] RE: comment on N-ary relations draft
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:37:08 -0800
> 
> > Please remember to place [OEP] in the message header when discussing
> OEP
> > issues
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 6:44 AM
> > To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> > Cc: joint-committee@daml.org
> > Subject: comment on N-ary relations draft
> > 
> > 
> > I just read the N-ary relations draft and I am somewhat confused as
to
> > why
> > it has the two representation patterns.  I don't see that the two
> > patterns
> > are different in any substantial way as the only difference between
> them
> > is
> > the direction of one arrow.  This difference may matter in some
> > formalisms
> > but doesn't in RDF/RDFS (as they are too weak to notice much
> difference)
> > or
> > OWL (as it has the inverse construct).
> > 
> > So, my question is why maintain the two different representation
> > patterns?
> > 
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> > 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 23:24:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 27 January 2023 01:58:22 UTC