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

Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday 2008-04-21

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:18:30 +0100
Message-Id: <1B03DB98-E16D-4C3E-81E2-B47AFE485E95@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 22 Apr 2008, at 17:03, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Thanks Bijan, Uli.
> My use case would be satisfied with the simplest of keys - no  
> inferred keys and keys only on named classes.

Then I would suggest that this isn't not something for the current  
spec. When convergence on a preprocessing/macro language emerges, it  
seems like it could easily be handled by that. For now, a fairly  
simple program could handle it.

If we introduce it as a general feature, I think we have to take more  
care to align it to the easykeys behavior so they are reasonably  

Obviously, the right sort of DL Safe rule (i.e., one with sparql/owl  
queries in the body) would do the job as well.

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 16:16:31 UTC

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