Re: Plea to re-open issue-113 [WAS: Disposition of some recently raised issues]

On 23 Apr 2008, at 09:34, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>>>   "OWL-x conform" reasoners *MUST NOT* infer non-entailments of  
>>> OWL-x.
>> I thought, in essence, this was the F2F resolution.
>
> me too
>
> I hope there is somewhere to record my -epsilon .... :)

It is burned into my brain.

I hear it in my dreams....a voice  
whispers..."Jeremy...disagrees....but only...a very....little...bit...."

(The "bit" echoes at least three times before becoming inaudiable.)

Cheers,
Bijan.