RE: Issue-114

Bijan Parsia wrote:

>Thus, in the absence of a concrete technical motivation, I think we
>should close it. Indeed, absent some evidence of significant WG
>support, I think we shouldn't expend more WG resource on it.
>Obviously, continued scrutiny is warranted, as always, but I don't
>think the current discussion has passed the bar yet.
>
>I would support putting back object/data punning, for that matter.
>The objections there were primarily motivated by syntactic problems
>in *one* (important) serialization. That's unfortunate, not happy
>making.

And Class/Datatype punning? That's disallowed, too, at the moment [1].

Michael

[1]
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs#Mapping_from_RDF_Grap
hs_to_Functional-Style_Syntax>