Re: Minutes, WebOnt, 2003-05-29

Note:  It would be much appreciated if the names associated with actions were
less ambiguous.  I am not the only Peter who has been in the working group.

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Minutes, WebOnt, 2003-05-29
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:20:54 -0400

[...]

> = = =  New

[...]

> RE: ACTION: Peter put  #349(D) change into S&AS     http://www.w3.org/2003/05/29-webont-irc#T16-43-57

Done.  It will show up in the usual place later today.

[...]

> D) OWL DL syntax NP complete
> 
>        http://www.w3.org/2003/05/29-webont-irc#T16-39-07
> 
>        RESOLVED WITHOUT OBJECTION: to change the mapping rule as
>        proposed in 349(D).
> 
>        Actions on Peter and Jeremy, noted above, as usual.
> 
> E) unnamed individuals
> 
>        http://www.w3.org/2003/05/29-webont-irc#T16-55-09
> 
>        An issue here should be raised so we can vote whether to
>        postpone it.  (ACTION Jeremy.)
> 
> F) ambiguity
> 
>        http://www.w3.org/2003/05/29-webont-irc#T17-00-52
> 
>        Peter to draft reply, encouraged to make editorial changes
>        which reduce confusion here.

Shouldn't there be an action here?  The log doesn't show any.

> G) OntologyProperty
> 
>        http://www.w3.org/2003/05/29-webont-irc#T17-05-10
> 
>        Two options here: fix a bug in OntologyProperty or just remove
>        it entirely.  Is it a useful subProperty of AnnotationProperty?
> 
>        RESOLVED WITHOUT OBJECTION (Connolly and Hayes abstaining): do
>        349(G) "peter and I [Jeremy] propose that we add an
>        ontologyproperty directive which mirrors the annotationproperty
>        directive in the abstract syntax, with appropriate mapping
>        rules."

Shouldn't there be actions here?  The log doesn't show any.

[...]

peter

Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 07:40:36 UTC