- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:04:23 +0000
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 11 Nov 2008, at 21:30, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [snip] > Possible discussion permitting some specific additional rdf > vocabulary in OWL [snip] I don't recall anything like this appearing on the mailing list, so why is it on the telecon agenda? Who's championing it? Is there a proposal? It's odd to spend telecon time on something that was not discussed at all on the mailing list. I certainly can't make sense of it from this bare line in the agenda. And it's not an issue? or is it an issue? And it's going to take under 10 minutes (given that it appears in the issue bit which is scheduled for only 10 minutes). I'll note that the issues are listed as "most/all 'on hold'", but there is an open proposal to close ISSUE 56: http://www.w3.org/mid/20081009.094128.205470707.pfps% 2540research.bell-labs.com Which has had only support on the list (including from me if that wasn't clear: I hereby support closing this issue with no action) and no opposition. It seems like there is consensus on this so we should close it along the lines of the Peter's proposal. ISSUE 127 still rests on a mistake a la: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0153.html It's pretty clear that regardless of the ultimate fate of the linear- equation note, there is strong opposition to removing these hooks. Manchester certainly strongly opposes that. I've not heard that anyone will lie down in the road *for* removing them. Indeed, I've not heard a coherent argument, or even an argument, for removing them. So I propose we resolve this issue as well. I'm not sure what 87 is on hold for. Is there an action pending? Issue 146 has died as well. There does not seem to be support for them, I find no active discussion, and there are no related actions. I propose we close it with no change. GRDDL waits on some investigation by me and discussion between Sandro, Ivan, and me to see if we can come up with a compromise we can live with. That, unfortunately, will have to wait at least another week on my part :( To sum I propose that we: ISSUE 146, 127, 56: Close with no action ISSUE 87: Close by adding rational to the built in types ISSUE 97: Put an action on Ivan, Sandro, and me to report on our discussion (after we've conducted it) in, say 2 weeks time I also propose that we remove the "possible discussion" item on the grounds that no one can prepare for it without there being some discussion on list. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 22:01:57 UTC