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

On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>
> 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)

Who else besides you? I see an clarification question from Jie in  
that message. And an "ok all done, thanks for the clarification" in:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0019.html

Then you riff off the topic:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0022.html

I see Michael adding clarificatory questions of you and Jie chiming  
in as well. I don't see support from *anyone* (including you!)

> are discussing whether to
> post an issue or not.

I see no such discussion. Where is that discussion happening?

To answer your question of:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Nov/0048.html

there are lots of potential problems of many different sorts. Bags,  
etc. are de facto deprecated and we'd open ourselves up to a  
sandstorm if we let them in and not lists. They suffer from the same  
problems as lists (i.e., we're screwed due to lack of property  
punning) and more (immediately you get an infinite primitive  
vocabulary). Etc. etc.

Furthermore, they're there in OWL Full.

I do not think it's remotely possible to deal successfully with the  
minefields in the remaining time available. The working group made a  
choice way back went to go with our current OWL Full strategy and I  
think, at this stage, we should stick with it.

> *If* they do I thought it important to discuss
> it.

Who is the "they"? Seriously. Please point me to a message which  
discusses this as an issue.

> Therefore I left a place in the agenda.

There's clearly almost no interest in the group expressed thus  
far...why take up telecon time?

> 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 think we have different understandings of concrete proposals. For  
one, I would expect at least *some* analysis of the feasibility. This  
is what you have: "I'm not sure - I was hoping someone might comment  
on whether there
were problems that arise with such usage." I don't see any analysis   
by you of the feasibility. I kinda resent, frankly, having to go over  
this again so satisfy your curiosity. And lack of memory as your  
proposal sketch mirrors some of the rejected discussion for rdf:List.  
If we rejected it then, I don't see we're going to change it now.

Rathole. We plugged it. Don't unplug it.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:55:23 UTC