- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 01:47:42 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 14 May 2009, at 00:57, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote: [snip] > I'm with Bijan on this one. Our next step should be to say that the > Working Group will not include his proposed changes, and then just > carry > the disagreement through the rest of the W3C process. I do not > believe > that there is any chance for a reconcilliation here. [snip] Indeed. However, I guess if it would *help* get through the next step to have more argument (from Sandro's perspective), I guess I can supply it. But I do think there is precedent for disregarding obviously kooky comments. (And the phrase "extension set" is killing me...there is no such thing. Concepts have extensions which *are* sets.) BTW, this is an ongoing thing (I've even found some WebOnt stuff by him!), e.g., http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Aug/0258.html Jie, I'm afraid you mislead him a bit (not that's it's hard to do!): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Aug/0259.html I fall back on my account: syntactically restricted first order formulae with one free variable :) (This elides some use/mention issues. And there in lies the real trouble with use/mention...it's fine to blur them "in standard ways" until someone decides to make a big deal about it :() Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 00:48:18 UTC