Re: Agenda for teleconference 2008.11.12 (ISSUE 146, ISSUE 87, ISSUE 97, ISSUE 127, ISSUE 56)

From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Agenda for teleconference 2008.11.12 (ISSUE 146, ISSUE 87, ISSUE 97, ISSUE 127, ISSUE 56)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:03:40 -0500

> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 11 Nov 2008, at 21:30, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >>   Possible discussion permitting some specific additional rdf vocabulary
> >> in OWL
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I don't recall anything like this appearing on the mailing list, so why is
> > it on the telecon agenda? Who's championing it? Is there a proposal?
> 
> Apologies for the brevity.
> 
> This is related to the discussion that ensued from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Oct/0147.html
> 
> The interested parties (which include me) are discussing whether to
> post an issue or not. *If* they do I thought it important to discuss
> it. Therefore I left a place in the agenda.

Umm.  I believe that there is a need for advance information available
to the working group before putting items on the teleconference agenda.
How were we supposed to make the connection?

> The last concrete proposal, some form of which may make it into an issue is
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0048.html

I don't think that this message contains anything close to a concrete
proposal.

> -Alan

peter

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 23:50:38 UTC