Email sent to [email protected] currently elicits and automatic reply stating that "You should receive a response from the Working Group with a few weeks". This is not appropriate given that the working group closed several years ago. Is there any way to change the message in the automatic reply?
Begin forwarded message: > From: W3C Postmaster <[email protected]> > Subject: Auto: [email protected] autoreply > Date: 5 August 2014 11:48:55 BST > To: [email protected] > > Thank you for your comments on OWL. You should receive a response from the > Working Group with a few weeks. > > ----- original message: ---------------------------------------------- >> From [email protected] Tue Aug 05 10:48:55 2014 > Received: from relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.166]) > by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) > (envelope-from <[email protected]>) > id 1XEcIX-00080T-UT > for [email protected]; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:48:55 +0000 > Received: from smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) > by relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) > (envelope-from <[email protected]>) > id 1XEcI5-0004JO-r7; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:48:25 +0100 > Received: from dhcp3-nat.cs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.88.5] helo=[192.168.18.104]) > by smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) > (Exim 4.69) > (envelope-from <[email protected]>) > id 1XEcI5-0005s1-3g; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:48:25 +0100 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) > Subject: Re: issue in OWL SS&FS and bug in mapping from RDF graphs > From: Ian Horrocks <[email protected]> > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 11:47:23 +0100 > Cc: [email protected], > Boris Motik <[email protected]> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Message-Id: <[email protected]> > References: <[email protected]> > To: Peter Patel-Schneider <[email protected]>, > Michael Wessel <[email protected]> > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) > X-Oxford-Username: coml0201 > Received-SPF: none client-ip=163.1.2.166; > [email protected]; helo=relay16.mail.ox.ac.uk > X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 > X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.300, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3 > X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XEcIX-00080T-UT 9e687837c2c7a2fc39f198b506c89403 > > Dear Peter and Michael, > > Thanks for highlighting these issues. I finally got around to adding it = > to the list of errata (https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/OWL_Errata).=20 > > Regards, > Ian > > > > On 11 Apr 2014, at 22:09, "Patel-Schneider, Peter" = > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The OWL Structural Specification and Function-Style Syntax states for = > most syntactic constructs with an arbitrary number of arguments that = > these arguments are considered to be a set under structural similarity. >> =20 >> This causes no problems for many of these syntactic constructs but = > there are a few where removing duplicates changes the meaning of the = > construct. >> =20 >> For example, according to the wording in section 9.1.3 of SS&FS >> =20 >> DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:foo ex:bar ) >> =20 >> implies that ex:foo is empty, which is very different from=20 >> =20 >> DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:bar ) >> =20 >> It would not be easy to simply change these constructs to take = > multisets because the OWL API would have to be changed. >> =20 >> =20 >> I propose the following fix: >> =20 >> 1/ The functional-style syntax requires that the arguments to = > DisjointClasses, DisjointObjectProperties, DisjointDataProperties, and = > DifferentIndividuals and all but the first argument to DisjointUnion all = > be structurally different. >> =20 >> 2/ When converting the triple x owl:disjointWith y where x and y are = > structurally similar the axiom SubClassOf( CE(x) owl:Nothing ) is = > produced. >> =20 >> =20 >> This is not an ideal fix by any means, but a better fix would require = > much more significant changes in deployed software. >> =20 >> =20 >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> =20 >> =20 > >
