W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 01:47:42 +0100
Message-Id: <44000EB9-AA76-4FE8-A714-9545FFF648D1@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 14 May 2009, at 00:57, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I'm with Bijan on this one.  Our next step should be to say that the
> Working Group will not include his proposed changes, and then just  
> carry
> the disagreement through the rest of the W3C process.  I do not  
> believe
> that there is any chance for a reconcilliation here.


Indeed. However, I guess if it would *help* get through the next step  
to have more argument (from Sandro's perspective), I guess I can  
supply it.

But I do think there is precedent for disregarding obviously kooky  
comments. (And the phrase "extension set" is killing me...there is no  
such thing. Concepts have extensions which *are* sets.)

BTW, this is an ongoing thing (I've even found some WebOnt stuff by  
him!), e.g.,

Jie, I'm afraid you mislead him a bit (not that's it's hard to do!):

I fall back on my account: syntactically restricted first order  
formulae with one free variable :)

(This elides some use/mention issues. And there in lies the real  
trouble with use/mention...it's fine to blur them "in standard ways"  
until someone decides to make a big deal about it :()

Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 00:48:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC