- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 01:49:33 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bijan, Closing the issue as withdrawn would satisfy my concern that the issues were not considered resolved. Thanks for the suggestion. On the specifics you mention I concur that the issue of there being no proposal is moot. On the issue of fragility I'm not sure I agree. Specifically, the fragility associated with transitive and cardinality constraints is limited to a single property. The interaction in the case of n-ary's involves more than one property. This is at least different and I don't understand what the full implications would be. On the issue of whether dl-safe rules with built-ins are a better or reasonable alternative, I don't know because I don't remember discussing this as an alternative. -Alan On Jul 9, 2008, at 12:13 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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 I propose we close this as withdrawn with a reference to Jeremy's 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.) > > Cheers, > Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 00:50:13 UTC