Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55

CLosing an issue should include some text about how the issue has  
been closed - i.e. the resolution - I'd be willing to close this  
(actually Postpone would be my preference) when we have a proposed  
closing text.  As we've seen, this one is important and often asked -  
so we need to have something explicit and definitive that we can  
point people to.


On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> This issue asks to reconsider the distinction between owl:Class and
> rdfs:Class.
>
> There have already been several emails, including
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0258.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0263.html
> that explain why merging owl:Class and rdfs:Class makes changes to
> ontologies and thus is not something that is suitable for OWL.
>
> The current situation is that several tools can perform this repair,
> although they do not guarantee that the semantics of the ontology is
> unchanged.
>
> I believe that there has been adequate discussion and that the  
> issue can
> be closed.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>

"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