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

Re: postponed issues (was Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday October 24, 2007)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:44:57 +0100
Message-Id: <8C32BF64-24D8-4F71-8F8D-09DDC6C06198@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

On Oct 23, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> I switched to raise because this seemed to be consistent with past  
> usage (see, e.g., WebOnt issues list [1]), and because propose  
> sounds to much like PROPOSED.

As I said, I prefer "raise/open". IIRC, Sandro pushed for that on the  
telecon. I just want to *know* :)

> My proposal (oops) is that issues be *raised* and subsequently  
> either *accepted* or *rejected*. Once accepted, an issue becomes  
> *open* until it has been *resolved* by the WG. As I understand it,  
> all open issues will need to be resolved eventually, even if the  
> resolution is only to postpone them.

This terminology is perfectly fine with me. raise/accept|reject/open/ 
close/reopen is pretty standard in my experience.

> I would, however, welcome an official ruling on all this from Sandro.

As long as it it's the right ruling :)

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 17:45:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC