W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

on issue-113 OWL-R non-entailments

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:08:04 +0100
Message-ID: <480767D4.7050506@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


I have reviewed the F2F minutes and remembered a bit what happened.

I see that I voted -epsilon on the resolution:

RESOLVED: DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. OWL-R does not 
have certain OWL Full entailments. Vendors can implement other/related 
languages if they want.

by which I think I meant:
- I was not very happy
- I could see that I had lost the argument
- I don't think HP will complain, (i.e. a 0) but felt I was pushing my 
brief a bit (so a little bit less).

This happened in the afternoon after our morning decision to publish 
profiles with the ed note that linked to the new issue-113


ACTION: Jeremy to RAISE issue on relationship between OWL-R 
non-entailments and OWL-Full entailments, and link to it from Fragments 
as EDITORIAL NOTE.

RESOLVED: Publish Profiles (formerly known as Fragments) on or soon 
after Apr 8, given the changed agreed to in the past hour.

and we didn't revisit that decision in light of the afternoon decision.

Hence I suggest that either: we open & close issue-113 noting the F2F 
resolution, and noting that public feedback might cause us to reopen it
or: we open it & after the comment period on the profiles document has 
expired, we close it with the F2F resolution.

Given that it is linked from the WD I think it would be procedurally odd 
to reject the issue.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 15:08:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 April 2008 15:08:57 GMT