- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:30:50 -0700
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> There has been extensive discussion around this issue, several
> proposals and at least one vote: see, e.g., [1], [2], [3] and [4].
>
> I don't believe that there is anything new to add, or that it is an
> issue that can be resolved by (gradually) identifying the "right
> answer". I therefore propose that we resolve the issue by taking a
> *final* vote.
Makes sense. I feel pretty strongly we should go with the
two-namespaces approach, but I'll agree to go along with the majority on
this if everyone else will. (Please consider this a proxy to that
effect, if I'm unable to make the call. I'm traveling this week.)
-- Sandro
> Regards,
> Ian
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0187.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0031.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0285.html
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-06-18#ISSUE__2d_109
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 04:31:12 UTC