- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:09:07 +0000
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Somewhere in the midsts of this thread ... Boris wrote: [[ Imagine you have an ABox A containing the following assertions: (1) hor(_:1,_:2) (2) ver(_:2,_:3) (3) ver(_:1,_:4) (4) hor(_:4,_:5) (5) _:3 != _:5 ]] etc. I find the message compelling. As one of the RFC Core WG who originally raised our ISSUE-46, I would be satisfied with allowing anonymous individuals in the tree like fashion (ISSUE-3) and disallowing them in the general position (ISSUE-46). Personally, I have enough information to be able to vote for closing both issues as above. I haven't thought through your alternative of skolemized semantics throughout ... my gut feel is negative. Given that ISSUE 46 was originally raised by RDF Core, I would suggest passing any proposal to close it, and a rationale (e.g. Boris's message) in front of Pat Hayes - and assuming he is happy, notifying semantic web interest, noting that I and Pat, are satisfied would close the procedural loop. Both of these could be done as an action after a decision to close the issue - with the issue in a pending-close state for a short time. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 14:09:38 UTC