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

Re: ISSUE-53 Proposal to resolve

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:08:55 +0100
Message-Id: <D445206D-CCE8-4D46-84AA-3F1130400475@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>

On 2 Jul 2008, at 15:59, Evan Wallace wrote:

>> On Jul 2, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>> This issue seems to be subsumed by issue-5, and I suggest we  
>>> close it.
>> I concur, though we should add a note to issue-5 noting that.
>> Best,
>> Alan
> Really?  Issue 5 expresses concerns about the proposed solution for  
> N-ary datatypes,
> while issue 53 provides a clear example (use case) for N-ary  
> inequality support of type
> 3 from Bijan's N-ary update [1].  The use case is still potentially  
> relevant even if a
> particular solution is rejected.  Of course, if we accept a  
> solution along the lines
> described by Bijan, then it would resolve both issues.
> -Evan
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/ 
> 0047.html

Of course, issues are just a mechanism for the chairs to manage  
things, but I would suggest that issue-5 be closed based on the fact  
that the raiser has, in effect, withdrawn it (see one of jeremy's  
last email). Thus, there's no one left who owns that, and the  
phraseology is unfortunate. ISSUE-53, on the other hand, has an in  
group owner, has not been withdrawn, and would need an answer if we  
don't adopt at least 3.

Any of the technical issues in ISSUE-5 can be reraised in a better  

(Just advice; not advocacy.)

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 15:06:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC