W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

your request to reopen 5.26 (was Re: Minutes of the beer session)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:59:08 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f20bb446ccec154@[10.0.1.3]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 7:11 AM +0300 7/23/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Jim: Jul 22 2003
>>  if you can claim victory
>>  on that, please let us know
>
>I claimed victory on 4 June.
>I have repeatedly asked for telecon time; and the chairs have not prioritised
>this (there was a scheduling constraint that it needed both me and Peter)
>
>I feel increasingly angry that the chairs agree to assign me an action, which
>required a significant amount of effort on my part, and then ignore the
>results.
>

Jeremy - I am sorry you are angry, no slight was intended.  However, 
you are asking us to reopen an issue which you are already on record 
as opposing.  I haven't seen any evidence that anyone other than you 
believes in your solution and has asked to reopen the issue -- 
However, given it was closed reluctantly, I made it clear on several 
telecons (and I know Guus agreed) that we would be willing to reopen 
if there was a firm proposal and it had some agreement -you have on a 
couple of occasions claimed to have a proof - but there hasn't been 
any obvious sign of support -- even then,  I've offered on a couple 
of occasions to put it on the table if you and Peter or Ian (or 
anyone else for that matter) would propose closing text and say what 
would be changed in the documents - I've never seen such a proposal 
-- if you'll put one on the table, I will add this to tomorrow's 
agenda.
  What I have not allowed, and will continue not to allow, is 
discussion of a closed issue without some proposal as to how to 
resolve it if we reopen it.  (Also, I personally would hope there 
would be some indication that if we agreed to the new closing you 
would remove your objection -- asking us to make changes that you 
would object to anyway would not seem to me to be forward progress).
  -JH
p.s. The above doesn't make it clear enough that I am trying to take 
the blame for not being clearer about what I needed from you, and I 
apologize for that -- please make a proposal as to the reopening, how 
to close, and what changes to documents would be needed, and I'll be 
happy to put this on the agenda.

>Jeremy: 04 Jun 2003
>>  We can weaken the constraint on blank nodes corresponding to descriptions
>>  and dataranges to be that all directed cycles of such nodes must have an
>>  owl:equivalentClass or owl:disjointWith triple.
>
>(and again)
>Jeremy: 20 Jun
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0294
>>  Copying from peter's msg, and filling in the holes ...
>
>
>agenda requests
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0112
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0353
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jul/0012
>
>
>Jeremy

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 12:59:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT