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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:26:07 +0100
Message-Id: <254889EB-924C-4D00-817D-9123EFCEDC70@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On Jul 9, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>> n-ary in a minimal form is currently in the spec. No one has  
>> properly proposed removing them. So there they are.
>
> Issue 127 mentions this.

I said "properly". As I pointed out before, that issue is just confused:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0153.html

Oh, when did it go from raised to open?

> However we have decided not have this issue the subject of  
> discussion until we have worked through whether there is a more  
> substantive proposal for n-ary datatypes that is acceptable to the  
> working group, in which case it would become moot.

I propose closing this issue as resting on a mistake. Peter already  
proposed closing it:

	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0035.html

Thus far, no one has proposed removing the existing minimal form of n- 
ary support that is in the spec on substantive grounds. HP was  
heading that way, but didn't actually do it. Your issue wrongly  
contends that adding that minimal support is something the group has  
to positively do.

If you want to remove the minimal support, you should propose doing  
that explicitly and state grounds. That's a non-starter for  
Manchester, btw, and I don't see any support in the group.

Please add it to the to resolve part of the agenda.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 06:27:01 UTC

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