Plea to re-open issue-113 [WAS: Disposition of some recently raised issues]

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg

>Issue 113 Closed with resolution from F2F (noted on agenda)

I think

  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0066.html>

can be considered new information on ISSUE-113. The resolution at the F2F2
did not take this technical point into account.

Vendors can of course implement whatever they want, and the WG does not need
a formal resolution on this fact. But if we allow vendors to call their
reasoner "OWL-x conform", although this reasoner infers non-entailments of
OWL-x, then we will legitimate *non-sound* reasoning. 

So I plea the chairs to re-open this issue.

My proposal would then be to

  close ISSUE-113 as REJECTED

optionally with a note in the documents that

  "OWL-x conform" reasoners *MUST NOT* infer non-entailments of OWL-x.

Michael