- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 24 Apr 2003 08:49:41 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 07:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Proposed reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Apr/0029.html > Date: 23 Apr 2003 09:30:06 -0500 > > > On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 07:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > I propose > > > > > > > > > Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an > > > XML Schema datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to > > > use user-defined XML Schema in OWL. > > > > That looks good. > > > > > > -- > > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > > > > So should I respond? I guess I should have been more clear... It looks good to me as a WG member. I think this is consistent with decisions made by the WG; in particular, on issue 5.7 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.7-Range-restrictions-should-not-be-separate-URIs and I don't see any new information w.r.t. the basis on which we made that decision. Oh... that issue should be cited in the reply. So this WG member is happy for the chairs to say that no, this doesn't need to go on the WG agenda and yes, it's OK for the editor to make minor/editorial changes to the spec and reply to the commentor. But... hmm... the rationale for 5.7 could be made more clear in the issues list first. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 09:49:36 UTC