Re: oneOfDistinct, a proposal for 5.18

I agree. I strongly support reopening the decision in light of Peter's

I am concerned that we shouldn't be adding features at this stage in the
game. Certainly if any such feature is controversial then we should postpone
consideration until the next version of OWL. If "AllDistinct" is
uncontroversial then I have no objection -- would it be in OWL Lite, DL or


> Jim Hendler wrote:
> > If the WG indicates that they agree with Peter and/or prefer this
> > 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
> > 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
> 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.
> Frank.
>    ----

Received on Sunday, 22 December 2002 23:06:33 UTC