- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:17:48 +0000
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On December 20, Frank van Harmelen writes: > > > Jim Hendler wrote: > > > If the WG indicates that they agree with Peter and/or prefer this decision, > > I will be willing to revisit our decision. If not, then we can go to LC > > without the semantics document, and resolve this and release that document > > in LC form as soon thereafter as we can > > If you're looking for support, than count me in as follows: > - I support Peter's objection (that last night's resolution lets "assertional > content" creep into descriptions) > - even if the semantics document could be fixed, it would still be > unattractive (Peter Crowther's points on this were well made) > - going to LC without the semantics document would be unacceptable in my > opinion. > > My first preference is Peter's proposal > and I would rather not have unique-names construction at all, > rather than going to LC without a semantics document. Strong support from me. I never liked the oneOfDistinct proposal as it has all the same problems as disjointUnion, which we considered sufficiently objectionable to eliminate it from the language. Going to LC without a semantics document is clearly a non-starter. Ian > > Frank. > ---- >
Received on Sunday, 22 December 2002 09:18:06 UTC