- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:30:22 +0100
- To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I'm content to close this issue, as long as doing so does not imply that the technical issues were resolved. I'm confident we can find appropriate wording. It may the case that closing it as something other than "resolved" is appropriate. -Alan On Jul 2, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Evan Wallace wrote: > Bijan wrote: >> 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 fact that the raiser has, in effect, withdrawn it (see one of 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 an in group owner, has not been withdrawn, and would need an 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 >> context. > > I second Bijan's proposal. While the HP issues with N-ary > datatypes probably did push us to look more > deeply issues with datatypes (computational -vs- numeric), haven't > these initial comments been overtaken > by events? > > -Evan
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 16:31:03 UTC