Re: Agenda for teleconference 2008.11.12

From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda for teleconference 2008.11.12
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:03:45 -0500

[...]

> > Fifth, there are proposals to close two of the open issues on the
> > list.  I think that these proposals to close should be up for voting.
> > Proposal to close ISSUE 56:
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0080.html
> > Proposal to close ISSUE 127:
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0035.html
> 
> These proposals have been discussed since they were first presented.
> We have not made a decision to call a vote on them as yet.

The only email discussion on ISSUE 56 has been agreement that the
proposal to close is a good idea and some meta-discussion that working
on something related to a resolution of the issue is not a good idea
until the issue has been resolved.  I thus don't see any reason why
there should not be a vote on whether to close this issue.

I therefore request an agenda amendment to vote on whether to close
ISSUE 56 as suggested in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0080.html

There has been discussion of n-ary datatypes, which is related to ISSUE
127, over the last while.  Progress on n-ary datatypes would remove what
some consider a blocker for ISSUE 127, so it seems to me that there
should at least be the possibility of resolving this issue whenever
there is the possibility of removing the blocker.

> Thanks for your comments,
> 
> Alan

peter