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

On 23 Apr 2008, at 09:57, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:29 AM
>> To: Michael Schneider
>> Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Plea to re-open issue-113 [WAS: Disposition of some
>> recently raised issues]
>>
>> 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.
>
> Then I have heavy difficulties to understand this resolution:
>
>   RESOLVED:
>     DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments.
>     OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments.

This means that the extra entailments are not sanctioned.

>     Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.

This was just an observation that we didn't need to sanction it.

> Hm, do you refer to the first two sentences? I interpret them more  
> to be
> contextual information. But if you say that
>
>    "DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments."
>
> was intended to mean
>
>    "DL /reasoners/ /must/ not have certain OWL Full entailments
>    /which are non-entailments of DL/ /or any other non-entailments  
> of DL/."

That's definitely how it was intended.

> then I will agree with you, and will only blame those who invented  
> this
> blurry formulation. :) In this case, of course, the third sentence  
> (which I
> thought was the actual resolution) is completely redundant.

It's not redunant, it's just an observation.

> However, looking again in the minutes doesn't convince me that the
> resolution was really meant this way. The direction of discussion  
> there
> seems to me rather the other way around. But I won't have problems  
> with
> being proven wrong on this point, again.

Sorry, I have no interest in spelunking the minutes at the moment.  
Given that there's massive agreement from other people on what was  
meant, I think it's fine. Since that massive agreement on what was  
meant includes the issue raiser, it seems even more fine. Since the  
issue raiser voted (albeit as minimally as possible) *against* this  
resolution (which, on your reading, he should have been *for*) it  
seems even more clear. Why are we even arguing about it?

>> BTW, that's not new information. It was definitely discussed multiple
>> times.
>
> Can you please show me in the minutes where this point was  
> discussed? I
> neither remember, nor do I find it in the minutes.

No, I have other WG work to do. Why is this relevant if everyone  
understands the proposal the way you want it to be?

Cheers,
Bijan.