Re: ISSUE-53 Proposal to resolve

On Jul 8, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> I'm content to close this issue, as long as doing so does not imply  
> that the technical issues were resolved.

What technical issues?

Does it matter? I don't refer to this issue *at all* when working on  
n-ary. It has no useful content.

But fine:

"""" N-ary datatypes seem both fragile and wrongly expressive (as  
compared, e.g., to dl-safe rules with built-ins)""""

They are not fragile (or no worse than transitive roles). They are  
rightly expressive (see use cases).

(Some people still doubt the latter, but does this issue help  
organize that? I'm sure Boris will raise it if it is necessary.)

"""there are no built-in n-ary datatypes, nor a language for defining  
them. E.g., see:"""

And that was just "it's a bluff" trash talking. We have a proposal  
for built-in types and a language for defining them.

There are issues with all this, but those are more narrowly technical  
and are being handled anyway.

> I'm confident we can find appropriate wording. It may the case that  
> closing it as something other than "resolved" is appropriate.

I propose we close this as withdrawn with a reference to Jeremy's email.

Close issue-53 as well along Ian's line.

(Personally, I don't like stale issue and stale action items. At some  
point, they can get in the way.)


Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 23:14:09 UTC