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

On 23 Apr 2008, at 09:57, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:29 AM
>> To: Michael Schneider
>> Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Plea to re-open issue-113 [WAS: Disposition of some
>> recently raised issues]
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2008, at 09:18, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> 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.
>>
>> I thought, in essence, this was the F2F resolution.
>
> Then I have heavy difficulties to understand this resolution:
>
>   RESOLVED:
>     DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments.
>     OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments.

This means that the extra entailments are not sanctioned.

>     Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.

This was just an observation that we didn't need to sanction it.

> Hm, do you refer to the first two sentences? I interpret them more  
> to be
> contextual information. But if you say that
>
>    "DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments."
>
> was intended to mean
>
>    "DL /reasoners/ /must/ not have certain OWL Full entailments
>    /which are non-entailments of DL/ /or any other non-entailments  
> of DL/."

That's definitely how it was intended.

> then I will agree with you, and will only blame those who invented  
> this
> blurry formulation. :) In this case, of course, the third sentence  
> (which I
> thought was the actual resolution) is completely redundant.

It's not redunant, it's just an observation.

> However, looking again in the minutes doesn't convince me that the
> resolution was really meant this way. The direction of discussion  
> there
> seems to me rather the other way around. But I won't have problems  
> with
> being proven wrong on this point, again.

Sorry, I have no interest in spelunking the minutes at the moment.  
Given that there's massive agreement from other people on what was  
meant, I think it's fine. Since that massive agreement on what was  
meant includes the issue raiser, it seems even more fine. Since the  
issue raiser voted (albeit as minimally as possible) *against* this  
resolution (which, on your reading, he should have been *for*) it  
seems even more clear. Why are we even arguing about it?

>> BTW, that's not new information. It was definitely discussed multiple
>> times.
>
> Can you please show me in the minutes where this point was  
> discussed? I
> neither remember, nor do I find it in the minutes.

No, I have other WG work to do. Why is this relevant if everyone  
understands the proposal the way you want it to be?

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 09:09:04 UTC