- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:42:58 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan, There seems to be some confusion here about the process we have adopted for resolving issues (for which I don't make any claims other than that it *is* the one we have adopted). Issues are added to the "proposals to resolve" section of the agenda not whenever a proposal is made, but when the chairs believe that there is a consensus around such a proposal. Unless the teleconf discussion rapidly confirms the chairs' belief, the issue is put back on the "further discussion needed" list. In this case, it didn't seem to us when we were preparing the agenda that your proposed resolution was likely to be approved without at least a great deal of debate. We therefore left the issue in the "issue discussion" part of the agenda. I think that events proved us right -- we spent quite a while discussing it and *still* didn't reach an agreement. Ian On 9 Jul 2008, at 07:26, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> >> On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> >>> n-ary in a minimal form is currently in the spec. No one has >>> properly proposed removing them. So there they are. >> >> Issue 127 mentions this. > > I said "properly". As I pointed out before, that issue is just > confused: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0153.html > > Oh, when did it go from raised to open? > >> However we have decided not have this issue the subject of >> discussion until we have worked through whether there is a more >> substantive proposal for n-ary datatypes that is acceptable to the >> working group, in which case it would become moot. > > I propose closing this issue as resting on a mistake. Peter already > proposed closing it: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0035.html > > Thus far, no one has proposed removing the existing minimal form of > n-ary support that is in the spec on substantive grounds. HP was > heading that way, but didn't actually do it. Your issue wrongly > contends that adding that minimal support is something the group > has to positively do. > > If you want to remove the minimal support, you should propose doing > that explicitly and state grounds. That's a non-starter for > Manchester, btw, and I don't see any support in the group. > > Please add it to the to resolve part of the agenda. > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 20:04:49 UTC