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

RE: Doubts about the proposal to resolve ISSUE-5 [WAS: Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda]

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:27:44 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0A2641D@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:13 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: OWL 1.1
>Subject: Re: Doubts about the proposal to resolve ISSUE-5 [WAS:
>Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda]
>
>On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
>>> request@w3.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:19 PM
>>> To: OWL 1.1
>>> Subject: Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>           o Proposals to Resolve Issues
>>>                 + Issue 5 Doubts about n-ary datatypes, per Bijan's
>>> email and Evan's email
>>
>> The two referenced emails both refer to proposals to resolve
>> ISSUE-53, not
>> ISSUE-5. And I can't remember that there was already a proposal to
>> resolve
>> ISSUE-5. What's the current situation?
>
>They also refer to ISSUE-5 in the bodies.
>
>http://www.w3.org/mid/D445206D-CCE8-4D46-84AA-3F1130400475@cs.man.ac.uk
>
>There was a proposal to subsume ISSUE-53 under ISSUE-5, Evan and I
>suggested closing ISSUE-5 for separate reasons.

Alright, I can see it. So, I assume that your current suggestion is to have
n-aries definitely in the spec /in some form/, where the details will remain
to be under development/discussion, right?

Cheers,
Michael


Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 20:28:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC