Re: ISSUE 131 (OWL R Unification): Different semantics on syntactic fragment from Jim Hendler on 2008-08-12 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from August 2008)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:33:49 -0400
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EAC6CC61-EE3C-460D-80C6-A37A826F8980@cs.rpi.edu>

> I would probably agree that this is the best we can do, if we were  
> demanded to perform the unification. But at the moment, we still  
> have to decide *whether* to unify at all. And after this discussion,  
> I think that it will be the best to simply close this issue without  
> any further action. This will also be the solution with the least  
> effort, considering that the internal reviews are going to start soon.

+1

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 01:34:39 UTC