- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:20:04 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > Actually, that's not true on several fronts. To mention just a two: 1) > IFDP are decidable, just not particularly implementable in the general > case and 2) the WG decided at the F2F to explore "easy keys" to address > exactly the foaf sort of case: > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F1_Minutes#Datatypes > > A fuller presentation of the proposal: > http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/EasyKeyProposal > I was particularly pleased to see this. To me this did seem to be a move with near unanimous support from the WG, responding to a need that is regularly voiced within the OWL Full community - moreover, the response seemed to have crossed a few of the DL-ish constraints that Jim seems to be complaining about, and overall the balance of user-need against theoretical considerations seems to be weighing in favour of the user. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 15:21:01 UTC