On 23 apr 2008, at 10:28, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2008, at 09:18, Michael Schneider wrote: > [snip] >> So I plea the chairs to re-open this issue. >> >> My proposal would then be to >> >> close ISSUE-113 as REJECTED >> >> optionally with a note in the documents that >> >> "OWL-x conform" reasoners *MUST NOT* infer non-entailments of OWL-x. > > I thought, in essence, this was the F2F resolution. > > BTW, that's not new information. It was definitely discussed > multiple times. I agree, no need to reopen the issue just to make this point. And, as a sidenote, it feels a bit weird to reject an issue that is phrased as a question. (i.e. that would mean that the WG felt the question was irrelevant) -Rinke ----------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands -----------------------------------------------Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 08:32:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 April 2008 08:32:18 GMT