Re: comment on the fragment document: (inverse) functional and DL-Lite

On 7 Mar 2008, at 16:36, Achille Fokoue wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Another rationale for giving up property functionality in favor of  
> property inclusion is that some of the E/R constructs missing in DL- 
> LiteR (e.g. key and uniqueness constraints) are generally used in  
> the database world to express constraints rather than enabling  
> inferencing.  So, adding them to DL-LiteR will not only affect  
> performance, it might also not correspond to the user's intuition  
> or expectation (i.e. a constraint that has to be checked, and if   
> it is not violated, then query answering can be performed ignoring  
> it).

Good point! In fact, it would be pretty easy to delegate that to the  
underlying database in a smooth way. One could annotate certain  
properties and then separate the constraint checking from the query  
answering.

Cheers,
Bijan.