Re: suggested edits on SWRL-FOL document (I think they're high-priority)

From: Sandro Hawke ([email protected])
Date: 12/21/04

Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "small edit Re: SWRL FOL submission"

Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: suggested edits on SWRL-FOL document (I think they're high-priority)"
In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: suggested edits on SWRL-FOL document (I think they're high-priority)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Speaking for SWRL-FOL, am I remembering correctly that it was decided
to not even have a "broken" RDF version of the syntax?   Is there some
text which explains that decision to the community which was reported
as happily implementing the broken one in SWRL 0.6?

(Of course this connects to a discussion Peter and I are having on
www-rdf-logic.)

     -- sandro

Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "small edit Re: SWRL FOL submission"
Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: suggested edits on SWRL-FOL document (I think they're high-priority)"
In reply to: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: suggested edits on SWRL-FOL document (I think they're high-priority)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 12/21/04 EST