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

ISSUE-29 and ISSUE-74 status and Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday January 23rd, 2008

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:54:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080123.035422.36230275.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday January 23rd, 2008
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:14:20 -0500

> 
> I have made further editorial adjustments, and you may want to get  
> the latest version on the wiki, but this is not essential.
> 
> Notes:
[...]

> - raised the question of whether issue 74 is to be resolved along  
> with issue 29, as the email to resolve discusses both, and subsequent  
> action by Jeremy to specifically propose wording for 74 would seem to  
> be moot in his later approval of the email

>From last week's minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.01.16/Minutes

	RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 74 (Use the xsd namespace
	for the facet names) as per
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0050.html

and earlier

Jeremy Carroll: only noticed now, owl:DataRange is also used for sets of
	plain literals... see:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0147
Peter Patel-Schneider: Hmm, I think that Jeremy's point needs thought

which resulted in ISSUE-29 not being resolved.


Jeremy and I had an email exchange
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0147.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0148.html
The net result is that we both believe that the resolution can go ahead.

Michael Schneider added an email yesterday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0229.html
analyzing the OWL 1.0 Full semantics with respect to the proposal and
concurring with resolution.

NB: The issue tracker is incorrect on both of these issues.  It lists
ISSUE-74 as being OPEN, even though there are notes on the resolution of
the issue.  It lists ISSUE-29 as being closed by Alan Ruttenberg even
though there is nothing to indicate closure in the issue.


> -Alan

The Issues section appears to be mis-formatted.  I'm assuming that there
are substantive four-subissues, each with 20 min (as opposed to only two
and having some of the agenda missing a top-level description).

peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 09:23:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2008 09:23:48 GMT