- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:27:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
- Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
OK, now I have some notion of what it would take to lift your "hold". Before I didn't, and didn't know what to do to advance the possibility of publication. peter From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu> Subject: Re: Publication proposal discussion summary Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:24:10 -0400 > Peter, > As I've stated before, WG review, discussion of the issues I and > others have raised, a better feel that the design that would add so > many new terms to OWL (almost double what is there now) is the right > way to go. Ian and Alan have suggested a proposal to do just that > and thus I support it. I think it is the correct way to go and would > take very strong convincing that any other direction makes sense at > this point. Arguing hypotheticals about what would change my mind > seems useless to me, esp. when such a clear way ahead (matching so > well w/W3C practice) has been proposed. > -JH > > > > On Oct 24, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > > > From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu> > > Subject: Re: Publication proposal discussion summary > > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:30:21 -0400 > > > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >>> * Jim expressed opposition to the structural specification *per se*: > >>> <http://www.w3.org/mid/F9A27E86-A5E8-4D40-8E77- > >>> FE17CF9F0247@cs.rpi.edu> > >>> > >>> I'm unclear whether this means he objects to its publication for > >>> review. > >> > >> I object to its publication for review prior to further WG discussion > >> (for now that is "object" in the sense of don't agree, if pushed it > >> can become "object" in the WG sense, but I hope that won't be > >> necessary given that there seems to be support for the idea of more > >> internal review) > > > > What would cause you to lift this objection? Suppose, for example, > > that > > no other WG member objected to publication. Would that suffice to > > show > > that there has been sufficient discussion? > > > > [...] > > > >> -Jim Hendler > > > > peter > > > > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would > it?." - Albert Einstein > > Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler > Tetherless World Constellation Chair > Computer Science Dept > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 16:36:00 UTC