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