- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:15:51 +0100
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:27 PM, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] > Alright, I can see it. So, I assume I suggest investigating rather than assuming. :) > that your current suggestion is to have > n-aries definitely in the spec /in some form/, n-ary in a minimal form is currently in the spec. No one has properly proposed removing them. So there they are. > where the details will remain > to be under development/discussion, right? N-ary is currently under discussion. I don't anticipate us resolving all the details right away. But *this issue* seems mooted. But I don't really care at all. The chairs requested some advice about issue management. I said what I do. Frankly, if I were the chairs, I wouldn't put it on the agenda at all and just close it as (essentially) withdrawn. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 22:16:31 UTC