Re: [OWL compatibility] #, ## in OWL compatibility

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:59:03 -0400
> Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I was under the impression that option #3 was specifically not chosen because it 
>> leads to some undesirable property in BLD/OWL-DL combinations. 
> 
> This impression is wrong, as I understood from talking to Jos.

Indeed, as long as we suitably restrict the syntax of such atoms.

> 
>> Also, doesn't 
>> BLD allow the range and domain of # to be much larger than OWL-DL does for type?
> 
> That has already been taken care of by the restrictions imposed by RIF/OWL-DL
> combo.

Such restrictions are currently not there, but they could be added.


Best, Jos