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

Re: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:10:47 -0400
Message-Id: <C60A4BFF-2DE0-45B8-8B5A-53C44909E007@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

When I wrote this I didn't know about how role chains enabled a much  
wider range of rules to be compiled. So I concur on closing this with  
a note that there is an opportunity here. I don't think I would  
necessarily say that it is for someone else to do, but certainly nor  
for us at the moment.

On Apr 18, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> On 16 January 2008 Bijan added a note to the proposal for ISSUE-22:
>   I think we should close this with no action. Here's why:
>   1) It's a new feature and there is no concrete proposal and I  
> spent a
>   few minutes trying to think of a syntax and had no good one other  
> than
>   the rule itself
>   2) Having just this one rule (which wouldn't be DL safe!) is very
>   strange and might conflict with rule extensions
>   3) It seems that the best place for this is in a "Decidable swrl
>   compiler" (as a visitor here was working on). There are *lots* of
>   rules that you can compile using the new expressive property
>   axioms. Why *this* one? Just because we thought of it? Better to
>   encourage the development of these SWRL compilers and leave it to a
>   "decidable fragments of SWRL" group.
>   [Bijan Parsia]
> There does not appear to have been any futher discussion.
> I agree with Bijan's comments, and propose that ISSUE-22 be closed in
> this fashion.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 12:11:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC