Re: Allowed types of punning (ISSUE-114)

On Jul 10, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> You may remember that the OWL 1.1 proposal allowed unrestricted  
> punning. The current inability to pun between Datatypes and Classes  
> and the among Object, Data, and Annotation Properties results from  
> perceived problems with the RDF serialization that allowed  
> unrestricted punning and the extra mis-alignment between DL and  
> Full that comes from this unrestricted punning.   A number of  
> working group members reluctantly allowed the above arguments to  
> overcome the coherent design in OWL 1.1, and went so far as to  
> design the current situation.

[snip]

And, of course, right now, this removal is considered to cause  
problems with other sorts of punning. Which is a technical problem  
(of sorts) with the removal. So we should put object/data punning  
back in.[*]

Cheers,
Bijan.

* I know Alan has a problem with the "discrete" interpretation of  
cardinality over punning vs. the unity, but that's just an issue of  
which semantics to use.