W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

ISSUE-114 [RE: Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda]

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:41:07 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0A26434@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:53 AM
>To: Alan Ruttenberg
>Cc: Ian Horrocks; OWL 1.1
>Subject: Re: Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda
>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-


>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, 

And I am its raiser.

Let me say that I originally thought it would be peculiar to have 

  (class|datatype) / (object|data|annotation)property punning 

in OWL DL. But now, I have heard several people arguing pro this kind of
punning. So you won't see me opposing this any further.

Btw, I don't think that it was "improper" to raise this issue. For example,
it eventually brought to everyone's attention that class/datatype punning is
now disallowed, too. However, if I was about to raise this issue today, I
would rather start such a discussion off-issue-list, in order to see what
people think (the preferred method, before raising an issue, anyway).   


Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 07:43:08 UTC

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