Re: ISSUE-53 Proposal to resolve

I agree with Evan's observation that his issue is a use case for N- 
ary and so shouldn't be absorbed into ISSUE-5. I withdraw that  
proposal. But I have a new one :-)

I propose that we resolve this issue by adding it to [1] as a use  
case. I don't think that it is necessary or appropriate to give this  
particular use case the status of a separate issue.

Regards,
Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_use_case


On 2 Jul 2008, at 16:08, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 2 Jul 2008, at 15:59, Evan Wallace wrote:
>
>>> On Jul 2, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>>
>>>> This issue seems to be subsumed by issue-5, and I suggest we  
>>>> close it.
>>>
>>> I concur, though we should add a note to issue-5 noting that.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Alan
>>>
>> Really?  Issue 5 expresses concerns about the proposed solution  
>> for N-ary datatypes,
>> while issue 53 provides a clear example (use case) for N-ary  
>> inequality support of type
>> 3 from Bijan's N-ary update [1].  The use case is still  
>> potentially relevant even if a
>> particular solution is rejected.  Of course, if we accept a  
>> solution along the lines
>> described by Bijan, then it would resolve both issues.
>> -Evan
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/ 
>> 0047.html
>
> Of course, issues are just a mechanism for the chairs to manage  
> things, but I would suggest that issue-5 be closed based on the  
> fact that the raiser has, in effect, withdrawn it (see one of  
> jeremy's last email). Thus, there's no one left who owns that, and  
> the phraseology is unfortunate. ISSUE-53, on the other hand, has an  
> in group owner, has not been withdrawn, and would need an answer if  
> we don't adopt at least 3.
>
> Any of the technical issues in ISSUE-5 can be reraised in a better  
> context.
>
> (Just advice; not advocacy.)
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 10:45:11 UTC