W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

ISSUE-114 (general punning): Which combinations of punning should be allowed?

From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:25:46 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080407212546.461506B64F@kent.w3.org>


ISSUE-114 (general punning): Which combinations of punning should be allowed?

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

Raised by: Michael Schneider
On product: 

At F2F2 we have decided to drop punning between different kinds of properties (data, object and annotation properties). 

Aside from individual/class punning, for which the WG has identified several usecases, there are still a lot of other possibilities to pun. From the first version of the DL Semantics working draft:

    Since OWL 1.1 allows punning [Metamodeling] in the signature, 
    we do not require the sets N_C, N_Po, N_Pd, N_I, N_D, and N_V 
    to be pair-wise disjoint. Thus, the same name can be used 
    in an ontology to denote a class, a datatype, a property 
    (object or data), an individual, and a constant.

So, as an example, it is still possible to pun between classes and an object properties.

We have to decide, which of the possible combinations of syntactical categories do we want to allow for punning.
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 21:26:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 April 2008 21:26:19 GMT