W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: ISSUE-47 (compound keys): REPORTED: 6.2-Compound Keys

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:05:13 -0500
Message-Id: <FBB81CF4-796D-4245-8ABB-6089216C51EB@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I could argue this is reasonable and feasible, but I won't - suffice  
to say, "we don't know how to do it and are therefore postponing it"  
seems to me to be a fine result.  (I believe that LOOM, for example,  
does have compound keys, but there's lots of other differences, so  
the fact that it was implemented somehow somewhere doesn't make it  
something we have to include)
  -JH


On Dec 3, 2007, at 3:41 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> Umm.  Don't either of these reasons make an extension "out of scope"?
>
> Hmm, looking at the scope section of the charter, it is not  
> immediately
> obvious that *any* extension is out of scope, but there is a
> "scope" statement in the mission of the WG:
>
>   The proposed extensions are a small set that:
>
>    1. have been identified by users as widely needed, and
>    2. have been identified by tool implementers as reasonable and
>       feasible extensions to current tools.
>
> although even this is not completely clear, because of the  
> "proposed" in
> the sentence.
>
> In any case, there should probably be some explanation of why the  
> issue
> is not being considered, and "no implementions" sounds acceptable  
> to me.
>
> peter
>
>
>
> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-47 (compound keys): REPORTED: 6.2-Compound Keys
> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:40:38 +0000
>
>> You're right -- out of scope is not the right reason. I am happy to
>> postpone it on the grounds that we don't know how to do it -- or
>> perhaps more precisely on the grounds that implementors are unwilling
>> and/or unable to support it.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> On 2 Dec 2007, at 18:20, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>
>>> I'm happy to support closing this as postpoint,but I would have a
>>> problem agreeing that it is out of scope - if we had a working
>>> mechanism we would certainly be allowed to add it.  I'd suggest
>>> postponing it because we don't know how to do it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2007, at 2:46 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone want to champion this issue?
>>>>
>>>> If not, then I am inclined to close it as Postponed on the grounds
>>>> of being out of scope.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,
>>> would it?." - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
>>> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
>>> Computer Science Dept
>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 14:06:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT