W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Proposed CLOSE ISSUE 56 with no action ( was Re: Agenda TC 22/04/2009)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:52:58 +0100
Message-Id: <EF782043-1B75-4033-9BC9-F603F3DE5460@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 21 Apr 2009, at 23:05, Evan Wallace wrote:

> Just a note on:
>>                o Pending Review Actions
>>                      + Action 321 Review NF&R (perhaps after some  
>> editing) / Elisa Kendall
> In [1] Elisa said,
>> Please go ahead and consider my action done for the moment
> so it was among the actions considered done at last weeks meeting.   
> See [2] in
> the minutes from the meeting.  Can we just remove this from the  
> agenda please?

I'll note that it's cleared from the tracker now.

I'll also note that, at the moment, we have *0* open actions! We've  
completed 330!

We have one "zombie" issue left (spoiling our possible 0/0 issues/ 
actions score):

which is on our agenda. I propose we close this with no action.

Regardless of whether it is technically in scope (and Peter and Ivan  
suggested it might not be),  I think, as I've said before, that this  
is the wrong time and place for such a document, even as a note.

First, it's definitely *new* work. This WG has not developed anything  
in this space at all, so it's not like it's a loose end lying around.  
I'd rather we spend our collective energies on the UFD and, esp., on  
the Test Suite.

Second, I also rather that implementors spend their *undivided* time  
working on implementing the extent specs.

There really is no point in writing a repairs document without  
engaging implementors. And they shall and should be busy.

Third, this is exactly the sort of thing that can be done and done  
well outside the working group. There's no way we can make it a rec  
track document in our alloted time and, if the document is good  
enough, it'll be picked up by implementors anyway.

So, I move that we close this issue and move on.

It's also clear that opinions are pretty solid on this front, so I  
don't know that leaving it open will change any minds. If we don't  
have consensus to close it, we should vote.

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 23:36:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC