- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 06:59:39 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > In recent days there have been identified three substantive differences > between OWL in AS&S and OWL as determined by the WG. This is sufficient to > make me suspect that the editor has taken too much latitude and needs to > carefully review the document and formally raise issues where he believes > that the document does not reflect OWL as determined by the WG. > > The three differences are: > - dataRange > - exclusion of XML Literals from OWL DL > - exclusion of rdfs:seeAlso and rdfs:isDefinedBy from OWL DL > > As far as I can tell none of these have been the topic, or subtopic, of any > issue, or WG resolution. The first has had a small of amount of discussion. > The other two not. > > I am happy to have a discussion on the first. > I expect the other two divergences to be fixed, or for new issues to be > raised which I will oppose. > > I also expect a complete list of substantive divergences between AS&S and > OWL as determined by WG process to be provided by the editors before we have > a last call vote. > (I realise that that requires judgement on the part of the editors). > > If, during last call, or CR, or PR, substantive issues arise because of such > procedural irregularities I will not hesitate to request a second last call. > > (These two might look like minor tweaks to Peter, however I cannot live with > them). > This sort of late game posturing is what can make good specs go bad. You need to give technical reasons why you "can't live with" what has been done -- coming from a person who at present doesn't give a hoot either way. Shrug -- I've never developed any sort of strong affinity for rdfs:seeAlso -- seems like a wishy washy sort of thing to me. What is your technical thinking? I am a little peplexed why folks who were all hot on OWL full in the first place cannot live with a limited OWL Lite or OWL DL. It is "Lite" for a reason, no? Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 07:21:50 UTC