Re: Expressiveness of OWL

Varga Péter wrote:

> 
> Jeremy Caroll wrote:
> 
>>>Also excluded were unions and intersections of properties.
>>> (...)
>>>Note procedurally what happened was not that these things were considered
>>>and rejected but that our charter said start with DAML+OIL, D+O did not
>>>have these things and noone suggested adding them.
> 
(...)
> 
> This is the rationale I see behind excluding role expressions from OWL. And 
> this is why I think that -- allowing that it might have happened from mere 
> continguence (which, personally speaking, I do not believe:) -- it is a good 
> decisions (although I also suffer from it in my modeling practice:)
> 
> All the bests,
>  Peter


I agree that the rationales that Peter points to report the underlying 
causes. Daml+Oil, I believe, had been designed with such concerns in 
mind; also, for those additions that we did consider for OWL, such work 
was discussed.

Jeremy