- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:18:31 +0000
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- CC: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Michael Schneider wrote: > Here's a little OWL I wrote, > Your reasoner will check it node for node. > Don't worry, it will be happy! > > ex:foo rdf:type ex:foo . > ex:foo ex:foo ex:foo . > ex:foo ex:foo "ex:foo"^^ex:foo . Fun example ... (I agree with Bijan on the technicalities) > > When thinking about punning in OWL-1.1-DL, I always differentiated between > two "kinds" of punning: > > * punning between individuals and classes, > > * punning between data properties and object properties. > > If my conjecture is correct, then it probably wouldn't make too much sense > to discuss whether a single "punning kind" like data/object property punning > should be dropped from the OWL-1.1-DL draft or not (the OWL-WG had such a > discussion this week), since it is then only one combination of many > possible: I see these particular cases as simply ways of focussing the discussion. If we can find a single pair of uses for which punning is clearly negative (e.g. will create too much unfortunate user surprise), then we need to rethink the approach to vocabulary separation, at least a little. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 10:19:00 UTC