- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 02 Jan 2003 10:55:42 -0600
- To: herman.ter.horst@philips.com
- Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 09:18, herman.ter.horst@philips.com wrote: [...] > I looked further at this appendix. > I believe that Appendix A.2 is too short (about half a page) to do > justice to the importance of its subject: Correspondence between > OWL DL and OWL Full. This appendix should contain the technical > basis underlying, for example, the important claim underlying OWL > which appears early in the Guide document: > "Every valid OWL DL conclusion is a valid OWL Full conclusion." Hmm... the way you write this suggests that Peter (and Pat and the other editors) are obliged to do everything that should be done to this document. No, their obligation is really only to integrate specific proposed text (or to explain why not) and to keep the document consistent with group decisions. Anything else we get from them is gravy, I think. And we've gotten a lot of gravy in this document. I agree that the correspondence proof stuff is very important. I have a hope/dream of checking it by machine (using larch or otter or some such). If you think more text belongs there, feel free to contribute more text. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 11:55:40 UTC