Re: Proposed (parital) response to Ken Laskey and questions for WG

At 10:15 AM -0400 7/16/03, Jeff Heflin wrote:
>Point taken. I also prefer  your second suggestion (i.e., change
>"typically" to "assumed to be".
>Before I send the message I'd like to see if the WG has a preference on
>whether or not we need to include some discussion of how OWL meets our
>requirements somewhere in our document set. This was a theme that ran
>throughout Ken's post.

I sort of like this idea - What about if we had an appendix to the 
reqs document that directed people to the appropriate document parts 
-- that way it wouldn't require a lot of new text?  Could be a table 
like  (these are random - not tracking the real things):

O1	"Realized via mapping to RDF"		http://sas/
O2	"Issue raised, but postponed"		http://issues...
R1	"Realized via mapping to RDF"		http://ref/...
R2	"see owl:sameAs"			http://guide/...
Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 13:52:23 UTC