- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:43:21 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, www-webont-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3F283BF9.1060204@ksl.stanford.edu>
on references in the overview, the original intent was to have a very short document and point to other documents for a lot of details so the original plan was not to have full references in overview when the other documents have extensive listings. if the plan is now changed , i can add references to the end but i probably can not do it til tomorrow. and just for the record, overview has always cited requirements. (it was somewhat recently updated to cite tests too.) Deborah Dan Connolly wrote: >On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 10:32, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: > > >>Dan Connolly wrote: >> >> >>>Sandro told me about a more recent >>>editors draft... >>>http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverview.htm >>> >>>It cites OWL tests, but not OWL Requirements. >>> >>>I'm not sure whether it's reasonable to request CR >>>without fixing this. >>> >>> >>I found a reference to "OWL Use Cases and Requirements" in the >>"Why OWL?" section >><http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/webont/OWLOverview.htm#s1.2> >>of the current editors draft. >> >> > >Ah! Good catch; I hadn't seen that. Thanks. > > > >>Regarding full citations: Personally, I don't think we should >>hold up the CR request for a lack of a References section in Overview. >>OWL Reference has one and the Overview editors may believe this is >>sufficient. >> >> > >I'd still like to get it fixed eventually, but I don't >think I'll wait for it at this point. > > > >>-Evan >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 17:43:50 UTC