Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55 as postponed

FWIW, my understanding is that from the point of view of this WG  
there's very little difference - the issue is "dealt with" and not  
discussed further (unless something new comes along or etc., but  
that's true of a closed issue as well) - the main difference is the  
signal it sends externally - by Postponing we suggest to the  
community that this is an issue to work on and to revisit in the  
future, and as such I endorse doing it in this case
  -JH


On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:23 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> 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.
>

"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