potential discussion topic from Re: proposed reploy for ``OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics review comments''

There is one change that needs either work or discussion, namely

> 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.

Correct.  It is not right.  Fixing it will require some surgery to Section
3.4.  This may need further discussion in the working group.

but this response explicitly excludes this one comment.

peter



From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: proposed reploy for ``OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics review comments''
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:55:50 -0400

> 
> amp;In-Reply-To=&lt;20030509.161403.35615391.pfps@research.bell-labs.com&gt;&amp;References=&lt;20030509.161403.35615391.pfps@research.bell-labs.com&gt;Content-Type: text/plain
> Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/)
> Message-Id: <1054313775.21361.279.camel@dirk.dm93.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 
> Date: 30 May 2003 11:56:15 -0500
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> OK, yes, peter, please send this.
> 
> To elaborate, in case my mailer isn't giving enough
> threading clues...
> 
> In response to this comment...
> 
> OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics review comments
> Jan Grant (Fri, May 09 2003)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0050.html
> 
> Peter proposed this reply...
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0112.html
> 
> And Jim OK'd it, with one minor correction.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0128.html
> 
> I read 0112 and I concur; it's responsive to the comment
> and consistent with the WG proceedings; i.e. it doesn't
> involve any changes that merit a WG decision.
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
>

Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 14:20:44 UTC