- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:42:18 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
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. 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. I would, however, welcome an official ruling on all this from Sandro. Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html On 23 Oct 2007, at 18:30, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Oct 23, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > >> >> We discussed this in the first teleconf [1] and agreed that, >> rather than migrating these (probably mostly irrelevant) issues, >> WG members who want to champion an issue from the WebOnt list >> should simply raise an appropriate new issue. > > Argh. Here I go nitpicking. Ian, you've written "raise" an issue > several times today. In the telecon we talked about proposing > issues (say, in the google code issue list) and the fact that > chairs have discretion about which proposed issues are "raised". > (This is Sandro's distinction. In my lexicon, raise = > sandro:propose and open = sandro:raise.) > > This is important because only chairs can sandro:raise/open issues > and they are not required to sandro:raise/open all issues that the > WG participants raise/sandro:propose. > > Can we pick a terminology and stick with it? :) > > Cheers, > Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 17:45:47 UTC