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

Re: Universal Property

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:34:15 -0500
Message-Id: <46DB42B7-E998-4153-B142-F1643398DCF5@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
apologies as usual for not being precise enough for Peter
  the minutes include
PROPOSED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 73 (Should owl:Thing be  
necessarily infinite?)
...
RESOLVED: close (as REJECTED) Issue 73 (Should owl:Thing be  
necessarily infinite?)

in between these is a vote of -1 by Jeremy and discussion of whether  
he would like to make a formal objection.  The minutes read:

Jeremy Carroll:: it's not a formal objection
	Jeremy Carroll: there may be enough small problems like this, that  
it may total to a formal objection...... [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
Ian Horrocks: close the issue, record Jeremy/HP voting against...
Ian Horrocks: ongoing discussion of this is not likely to get us to  
consensus. Jeremy seems to agree with this assessment -- he just  
wants a "no" vote recorded. [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke]
...
Jeremy Carroll: maybe HP should review the vote against, but perhaps  
at the next publication stage

so I was referring to that.  The choice of the subject line was  
because a thread in our mailing list that discussed this issue had  
that subject

I apologize for not rendering what I thought were obvious inferences  
into a more formal form the first time around

so, to recap, I felt that issue 73 was closed without enough  
discussion to make it clear to me (and maybe some others) what the  
implications were, and since it was closed without consensus, I  
wanted to make sure RPI was on record as not having agreed, since we,  
like HP, may want to review the issue at a later time

  -JH





On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> Umm, which issue, which objection?
>
> I could not find an issue whose title mentions a universal property.
> I also could not find an objection from Jeremy in the minutes of the
> last two TCs.
>
> peter
>
>
> From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
> Subject: Re: Universal Property
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:56:41 -0500
>
>> I am uncomfortable with the closing of this issue over Jeremy's
>> objection - I see very little discussion of the issue, I see no use
>> cases or tests which have been proposed that separate the issue, and
>> I find the theoretical emails to be stuff I cannot understand -- so
>> RPI would like to go on record as voting against the closing of the
>> issue.  We will not create a formal objection, but like Jeremy we
>> reserve the right to create an objection when the document that
>> actually explains this is published
>>   -Jim Hendler
>>   AC Rep
>>   RPI
>>
>

"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 Friday, 18 January 2008 14:34:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 January 2008 14:34:41 GMT