- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:53:21 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, OWL 1.1 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 9, 2008, at 2:18 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:26 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> >> I proposed to resolve ISSUE-114 as closed with no change: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0058.html >> >> There is expressed support: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0059.html >> http://www.w3.org/mid/20080702.081517.262480539.pfps% >> 2540research.bell-labs.com >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0063.html >> (Implicit): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/ >> 2008Jul/0024.html >> >> After my proposal there was no discussion from the supporting >> camp. I believe that the removing of e.g., class/property would >> receive very strong opposition. > > I have asked for further information and have not received a response. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0027.html > -Alan You also said that you'd provide a "it's hard for users" argument: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0204.html And have not done so. I don't see how any of that is relevant. This is another hijacked issue. It started with an (improper) issue to "review" all forms of punning, and now has morphed into first, a off list "review" that was very incomplete and then to a de facto requirement for review. Since you are now the champion of this issue, may I ask how disposition of this issue is being decided? Specifically, formally speaking, are you, qua chair, involved in the disposition of this issue (i.e., where to put it on the agenda, etc.) If so, when are you speaking with chair hat on and when with chair hat off. I don't see that you've even begun (chair hat off) to turn this into a substantively argued position. It's also clear that WG sentiment is pretty strongly against it. I would bet on formal objections, even, but barring that, I don't see that there's going to be sufficient support at all. So why are we burning working group time and attention on this? So, why is my request being refused? (Indeed, it's really nonsense. Absent some actual technical issue, the OWL 2 DL tools are all going to support this. Thus, the only *possible* result is to make them all nominally OWL Full tools, which is ridiculous.) Thus, I reiterate my request: >> I asked that it be added to the agenda at telecon time last week >> but was told that it needed to be added earlier. So I hereby >> request it earlier. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 06:54:03 UTC