Re: ISSUE-29 and ISSUE-74 status and Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday January 23rd, 2008

I reopened Issue-29 (although we can hopefully re-close it soon) and  
closed issue 74 (I added pointers to the relevant document updates).

I also fixed a minor formatting glitch.

Ian


On 23 Jan 2008, at 08:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Agenda for teleconference Wednesday January 23rd, 2008
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:14:20 -0500
>
>>
>> I have made further editorial adjustments, and you may want to get
>> the latest version on the wiki, but this is not essential.
>>
>> Notes:
> [...]
>
>> - raised the question of whether issue 74 is to be resolved along
>> with issue 29, as the email to resolve discusses both, and subsequent
>> action by Jeremy to specifically propose wording for 74 would seem to
>> be moot in his later approval of the email
>
>> From last week's minutes:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.01.16/Minutes
>
> 	RESOLVED: close (as RESOLVED) Issue 74 (Use the xsd namespace
> 	for the facet names) as per
> 	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0050.html
>
> and earlier
>
> Jeremy Carroll: only noticed now, owl:DataRange is also used for  
> sets of
> 	plain literals... see:
> 	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0147
> Peter Patel-Schneider: Hmm, I think that Jeremy's point needs thought
>
> which resulted in ISSUE-29 not being resolved.
>
>
> Jeremy and I had an email exchange
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0147.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0148.html
> The net result is that we both believe that the resolution can go  
> ahead.
>
> Michael Schneider added an email yesterday
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0229.html
> analyzing the OWL 1.0 Full semantics with respect to the proposal and
> concurring with resolution.
>
> NB: The issue tracker is incorrect on both of these issues.  It lists
> ISSUE-74 as being OPEN, even though there are notes on the  
> resolution of
> the issue.  It lists ISSUE-29 as being closed by Alan Ruttenberg even
> though there is nothing to indicate closure in the issue.
>
>
>> -Alan
>
> The Issues section appears to be mis-formatted.  I'm assuming that  
> there
> are substantive four-subissues, each with 20 min (as opposed to  
> only two
> and having some of the agenda missing a top-level description).
>
> peter
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 11:17:41 UTC