Re: proposed addendum to reply to unnamed-ontologies comment

regarding
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0050.html

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 13:56, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I have made the minor changes to the direct model theory to address a
> problem raised by the RDF Core WG and formulated a reply.  

I'd prefer that the reply quoted the actual text that we're
asking them to evaluate rather than (a) pointing to something
that's subject to change without notice, and (b) giving
an ad-hoc summary of the text.

Also, I'm not sure I understand this part of the design well
enough to tell how consistent this new text is with the
WG decisions and such.

So I can't confirm that it's responsive to the comment and
consistent with WG proceedings, but I don't object to it;
if Jim or Guus can confirm, very well.

By the way, Peter, putting some technical keywords
(e.g. unnamed ontologies)
in the subject might help get the attention of more of
the relevant WG members.


> peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an addendum to the previous reply.
> 
> > --- owlsas-rdfcore-unnamed-ontologies
> > 
> > Section 3.4
> > Unnamed ontologies: informally, multiple Annontations on an unnamed
> > ontology don't need to be satisfied by the same "x" according to this
> > table. Don't think that's right.
> 
> The newest editor's draft of S&AS (of 4 June 2003, available at
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/usr/pfps/owl/) has a new Section 3.4
> that should satisfactorily address this issue.
> 
> The basic change is that the interpretation of Ontology Annotations is done
> in an environment where there is a resource for the ontology, named or not.
> 
> Please reply to this message as to whether this response is satisfactory,
> copying public-webont-wg@w3.org
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 16:27:58 UTC