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

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

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:34:18 +0200
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <8096BD0C-6EFC-44A9-874D-7BD01DC13769@uva.nl>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

+1 to closing/withdrawing/resolving this issue at today's telecon

(though the exercise of coming up with use-cases was helpful...)

-1 to fishing

(even though I've heard fishing can be a calming experience, I think  
the infringement of animal rights outweighs this advantage)

-Rinke


On 9 jul 2008, at 10:17, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>
> On 9 Jul 2008, at 08:41, Michael Schneider wrote:
> [snip]
>> 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.
>
> So withdraw the issue.
>
>> Btw, I don't think that it was "improper" to raise this issue.
>
> As extensively argued at the time, it wasn't a substantive issue.  
> I.e., you raised no specific technical or user point. It was a  
> fishing expedition. It's perfectly reasonable to fish on list (we  
> need review) but to make it an *issue* just distorts the meaning of  
> "issue".
>
>> For example,
>> it eventually brought to everyone's attention that class/datatype  
>> punning is
>> now disallowed, too.
>
> That there were possibly useful side effects doesn't make it proper.  
> You also asked today for there to be a *very* heavyweight issue  
> resolution process. That only works if issue *raising* is similarly  
> weighty. If it's easy to raise issues and hard to get rid of them,  
> then we make progress very difficult.
>
> (Also, there are several review points ahead of us where the  
> documents are subject to a lot of scrutiny. Why is *now* a good time  
> to bring this to everyone's attention?)
>
>> 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).
>
> Yes. Hence, it being improper :) Please note that I don't have  
> *animous* against you for that. We just, at the time, had different  
> views of how issues per se should work.
>
> Here's an analogy. My understanding is the if you do a full body  
> scan (with an MRI) you will *always* find "suspicious" stuff.  
> (Nodes, lumpy things, etc.) Everyone has that. The problem is that  
> once something suspicious shows up, the doctors are *obliged* (by  
> ethics and by sensible fears of malpractice) to take them all  
> seriously. This can involve invasive and inherently dangerous  
> methods such as biopsies. Thus, random scans can put the person at  
> *greater* risk (and cost a lot of resources that could have been  
> used eleswhere).
>
> Raising issues like this seem to be like doing random scans, esp. if  
> we add a heavy resolution process.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

-----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 08:34:56 UTC

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