- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Dec 2002 16:49:56 -0600
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Ugh! I'm trying to prepare for tomorrow's telcon, and I think it's a shame that so much energy is being spent on whether something is in OWL Lite or not, or whether OWL Lite has a different semantics or what-not. I'm tempted to use this as new information and ask to re-open issue 5.2 on the grounds that OWL Lite is putting our schedule at risk. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels We really need to get into the mode of careful editorial review and running tools over the test suite, as Jeremy noted 6Dec http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0048.html Hmm... I thought I abstained on that decision; I must not have been paying attention... "RESOLVED: to close 5.2, endorsing existing an owl lite language subset and test class." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4#Lite -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 17:49:41 UTC