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

Re: proposal to resolve issue-114 - Which combinations of punning should be allowed?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:49:35 +0100
Message-Id: <D351B82A-D91E-4D1C-AF6B-A7EE4AD3059B@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

On 19 Aug 2008, at 17:39, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am not sure I understand this e-mail. Please note that, in RDF,  
> all possible combinations of punning are allowed: you can use the
> same URI for all different types of entities. For example, in RDF  
> (and OWL Full) there is nothing that prevents you from using the
> same URI as both a class and a datatype; furthermore, you can use  
> the same URI as a class and a property.
>
> In OWL 2 DL, we need to restrict that because of the two-sorted  
> nature of our logic and the decision not to disambiguate class
> constructors involving properties in the RDF syntax (see Issue-17).  
> Therefore, in OWL 2 we cannot pun between classes and datatypes,
> and object and data properties. Thus, restrictions on punning in  
> OWL 2 are *stronger* than in RDF (where they are actually void).

By the by, I really wouldn't mind getting object/data property  
punning back. I just got bit by the lack the other day when working  
on the implementation of a quantity datatype by translation:
	http://clarkparsia.com/files/pdf/units-owled2008-eu.pdf

I now am forced to coin new URIs and then uncoin them. Not the worst  
thing, but not the happiest either.

I realize we won't redo that decision but I do think it's important  
to recognize that we should err on the side of liberality when we  
can. Even if no author uses it, it may be helpful or necessary in  
transformation contexts.

In other words, speaking as a user, I request as much punning as  
possible.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 16:47:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 August 2008 16:47:10 GMT