- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:09:29 -0400
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, [...] > I believe that the use cases for "individual vs. anything" type of punning have been well documented in a number of publications. > Thus, the only type of punning that could potentially be controversial is "class or datatype vs. some type of property". > > Right, I don't expect people really wanting to have a property called "xsd:integer"; however, I don't see how disallowing it makes > the spec better. People can do this in OWL Full, and allowing this in OWL DL merely allows us to handle a larger percentage of RDF > graphs. Moreover, I believe that there is no distinction between the semantics of punning in OWL Full and OWL DL; to be more > precise, I don't think you can notice the difference at the level of consequences. > > The same holds for punning of the form "class vs. some type of property". > > Regards, > > Boris As well, if OWL 2 allows individual/class and individual/object property punning (for example), it seems to me that it implicitly allows class/object property punning. In fact, prohibiting the third kind of punning while allowing the first two is going to require some interesting behaviour: Case 1 - OK, individual/class punning: Declaration( NamedIndividual( ex:foo ) ) Declaration( Class( ex:foo ) ) Case 2 - OK, individual/object property punning: Declaration( NamedIndividual( ex:foo ) ) Declaration( ObjectProperty( ex:foo ) ) Case 3 - OK, both of the above categories of punning: Declaration( NamedIndividual( ex:foo ) ) Declaration( Class( ex:foo ) ) Declaration( ObjectProperty( ex:foo ) ) Case 4 - not OK?????, but a subset of Case 3????? Declaration( Class( ex:foo ) ) Declaration( ObjectProperty( ex:foo ) ) peter
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 02:17:53 UTC