At yesterday's telecon, it became clear that I had mistakenly believed that we had resolved this issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#unmentioned-qualified-re strictions Moreover, we discussed using an issue driven process; and this issue was available for a (hopefully uncontroversial) exercise for the group in using the process. Hence, Jim opened the issue at the telecon. I believed that I was assigned as issue owner. As issue owner, since I believe I have heard consensus, I now summarise that consensus and propose a resolution. Summary of consensus ==================== At the face2face no one wished to include qualified restrictions in OWL. Proposed Resolution =================== I propose that the WG - decides that the qualified restrictions of DAML+OIL are not part of OWL. - approves the test cases of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0126.html as reflecting this decision. - closes the unmentioned-qualified-restrictions issue. If there is anyone who believes they should be part of OWL, please respond to this message - ideally arguing for retaining them. Jeremy PS This message fulfils ACTION Jeremy: propose (again) that *Q gets droped. from the telecon of 18th April.Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 08:56:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:04:49 GMT