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

>-----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-
>wg/2008Jul/0058.html

[...]

>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).   

Michael