Re: oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18

On December 20, Frank van Harmelen writes:
> 
> 
> Jim Hendler wrote:
> 
> > If the WG indicates that they agree with Peter and/or prefer this decision,
> > I will be willing to revisit our decision.  If not, then we can go to LC
> > without the semantics document, and resolve this and release that document
> > in LC form as soon thereafter as we can
> 
> If you're looking for support, than count me in as follows:
> - I support Peter's objection (that last night's resolution lets "assertional 
> content" creep into descriptions)
> - even if the semantics document could be fixed, it would still be 
> unattractive (Peter Crowther's points on this were well made)
> - going to LC without the semantics document would be unacceptable in my 
> opinion.
> 
> My first preference is Peter's proposal
> and I would rather not have unique-names construction at all,
> rather than going to LC without a semantics document.

Strong support from me. 

I never liked the oneOfDistinct proposal as it has all the same
problems as disjointUnion, which we considered sufficiently
objectionable to eliminate it from the language.

Going to LC without a semantics document is clearly a non-starter.

Ian

> 
> Frank.
>    ----
>