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

Re: Issue-114

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:37 +0100
Message-Id: <EADCDA9C-35BE-4296-8C33-B8AC82C530D7@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On Jun 30, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> After discussion with Michael, we agreed to narrow this issue as  
> follows: We propose that the only punning in OWL is against  
> individuals - that is, anything named in OWL can have an individual  
> with the same (punned name).
>
> This corresponds to what I believe is the commonly requested case,  
> and simplifies the current situation in which we have narrow  
> restrictions on certain forms of punning - no object/data property  
> punning, no class/datatype punning.

This is a very tendentious reading of "simplifies". It's just as  
sensible, if not more so, to say that this *complicates* the picture  
because it unmotivatedly adds restrictions that are not necessary by  
any standard. The simplest would be pun everything or pun nothing. In  
practice, punning more seems to be less of a burden than punning less.

Btw, I forget why class/datatype punning is gone. Presumably, if data/ 
object properties must be distinct, one can always disambiguate.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 21:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 June 2008 21:32:13 GMT