- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:42:14 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
See: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ALR1 Here's the text: """<<LC BOILERPLATE>> The working group has decided to make no change to OWL 2 in response to your comment. While we appreciate the use cases raised in your comment, we found that the specification and technical difficulties of adding such a feature at this time outweigh the benefits it would bring, esp. given the existence of various workarounds. For example, * One could embed class expressions in literals, i.e., xsd:string or XMLLiteral. While you point out that "strings rust", one could introduce a named subtype of xsd:string that would allow tools, such as Protege 4, to syntax check the expressions. * One could introduce a named class for the expression. To avoid cluttering the class hierarchy with these classes, one could either annotate the axioms, or use a distinguished naming scheme, or make them subclasses of a certain class. * In OWL Full, this is available in certain forms. So one could use OWL Full to guide an extension. The main issue with such workarounds is, of course, interoperability. However, we do feel confident that reasonable interoperability could be accomplished by your publishing details of the annotations (or naming scheme, or subtype) and having your popular tools support it.""" I guess there's boilerplate afterwards as well, "Please let us know if this satisfies you. Blah blah." Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 19:38:56 UTC