W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55 as postponed

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:23:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080108.022359.251146586.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

What is the difference between POSTPONING an issue versus simply CLOSING
the issue in this WG?  (The reasoning I am asking is that I am unclear
as to whether there is any technical or resource reason why this issue
should be postponed instead of closed.)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55 as postponed
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:22:44 -0500

> Following a discussion with Ian, in which we acknowledge Peter's  
> comment below and subsequent discussion on the mailing list, and  
> Jim's desire to postpone this issue,  Ian and I propose that we close  
> the issue by postponing it, noting Peter's comment.
> -Alan
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > It appears to me that ISSUE-55 asks for a solution that eliminates  
> > the differences between rdfs:Class and owl:Class, or a statement as  
> > to why this is not a good idea.  There have already been statements  
> > that say why rdfs:Class and owl:Class are different.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 07:49:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC