Re: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111)

On 21 May 2008, at 20:29, Boris Motik wrote:
[snip intended consequence relation stuff]

That works for me.

> I do agree that, from a practical point of view, one might want to  
> stipulate that an ontology has been designed as, say, an EL++
> ontology. We have two possibilities for handling this:
>
> - We might recognize that this is an orthogonal concern to the  
> choice of the consequence relation. Therefore, we might add a
> different annotation property called, say, owl:syntacticFragment.
>
> - We might introduce owl:EL++, owl:DL-Lite, and owl:OWL-R-DL, but  
> say that they are, from the point of view of the consequence
> relation, equivalent to owl:DL. We should then say that we merged  
> the actually orthogonal concerns of selecting the consequence
> relation and providing hints into one construct due to practical  
> reasons.

Either of these is fine with me, so is deferring that. It'd be  
interesting to get some wider feedback. One way to do that is to put  
a design in the spec and make it prominent. Another is to ask around :)

Cheers,
Bijan.