- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:44:57 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Oct 23, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > I switched to raise because this seemed to be consistent with past > usage (see, e.g., WebOnt issues list [1]), and because propose > sounds to much like PROPOSED. As I said, I prefer "raise/open". IIRC, Sandro pushed for that on the telecon. I just want to *know* :) > My proposal (oops) is that issues be *raised* and subsequently > either *accepted* or *rejected*. Once accepted, an issue becomes > *open* until it has been *resolved* by the WG. As I understand it, > all open issues will need to be resolved eventually, even if the > resolution is only to postpone them. This terminology is perfectly fine with me. raise/accept|reject/open/ close/reopen is pretty standard in my experience. > I would, however, welcome an official ruling on all this from Sandro. As long as it it's the right ruling :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 17:45:28 UTC