I personally have no problem with saying "if you mess with the OWL vocabulary, you are on your own" (or whatever polite way we say Don't) -- I think in OWL 1.0 we wasted a lot of time worrying about border cases of this kind, and in practice it is rarely done - most people understand that if you mess with the reserved vocabularies in most languages you get screwed, and I haven't seen anyone demanding the ability to do - it is great fun to come up with cases that do all sorts of neat things and this is no different for the fragment than for the whole language - for example owl:Thing owl:sameAs owl:Nothing made for some neat results in (previous versions of) Pellet. On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Feb 28, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> Note: I have not thought much about the pD* treatment of owl:sameAs >> as >> it relates to messing with the OWL vocabulary. > > We have some choices in defining this fragment. OWLPrime advocates: > Do you really want to be able to mess with the OWL vocabulary, > considering that it opens up all sorts of possibilities for trouble? > > -Alan > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?." - Albert Einstein Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair Computer Science Dept Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 22:00:28 UTC