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

Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55 as postponed

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:57:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080108.085758.101808654.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

But what possible future work is there to be done on this topic?  I
can't think of anything.  There have been multiple email messages on the
issue, describing why conflating owl:Class and rdf:Class is not
something to be done in OWL.  Given this, why should the issue be
POSTPONED instead of being directly CLOSED?

peter


From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55 as postponed
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:45:49 -0500

> FWIW, my understanding is that from the point of view of this WG  
> there's very little difference - the issue is "dealt with" and not  
> discussed further (unless something new comes along or etc., but  
> that's true of a closed issue as well) - the main difference is the  
> signal it sends externally - by Postponing we suggest to the  
> community that this is an issue to work on and to revisit in the  
> future, and as such I endorse doing it in this case
>   -JH
> 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:23 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >
> > What is the difference between POSTPONING an issue versus simply  
> > CLOSING
> > the issue in this WG?  (The reasoning I am asking is that I am unclear
> > as to whether there is any technical or resource reason why this issue
> > should be postponed instead of closed.)
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> >
> > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> > Subject: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55 as postponed
> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:22:44 -0500
> >
> >> Following a discussion with Ian, in which we acknowledge Peter's
> >> comment below and subsequent discussion on the mailing list, and
> >> Jim's desire to postpone this issue,  Ian and I propose that we close
> >> the issue by postponing it, noting Peter's comment.
> >>
> >> -Alan
> >>
> >> On Dec 16, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>
> >>> It appears to me that ISSUE-55 asks for a solution that eliminates
> >>> the differences between rdfs:Class and owl:Class, or a statement as
> >>> to why this is not a good idea.  There have already been statements
> >>> that say why rdfs:Class and owl:Class are different.
> >
> 
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
> it?." - Albert Einstein
> 
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:24:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:24:08 GMT