- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 24 Jun 2003 10:47:36 -0500
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dave didn't find our response satisfactory. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0068.html Jim, Guus, pls consider - finding more rationale for the status quo that we might use to convince Beckett "Maybe you do have multiple interoperable implementations of the mapping from OWL's concrete syntax (RDF triples) to OWL's abstract syntax and I am just unaware of them. If that is the case, then I would be more satisfied." - re-opening issue 5.26-OWLDLSyntax http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.26-OWLDLSyntax Otherwise, I guess we can add Beckett to the dissenters on issue 5.26. Maybe this merits telcon time this week? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 11:46:58 UTC