- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:52:48 +0100
- To: Markus Stocker <markus.stocker@gmail.com>
- CC: public-gld-comments@w3.org
On 07/06/13 10:25, Markus Stocker wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for comments. > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dave Reynolds > <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Markus, >> >> >> On 05/06/13 18:17, Markus Stocker wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The Example 4 [1] demonstrates how to attach a component at the data >>> set level. However, qb:DataSet is a class and, as far as I understand, >>> this statement is thus beyond OWL DL. Am I correct that this can be >>> circumvented by using the Punning feature of OWL 2 DL in adding the >>> assertion owl:NamedIndividual(qb:DataSet)? >> >> >> The Data Cube ontology is not OWL 2 DL in several ways and attachment >> declarations is certainly one of them. > > Could it be of interest to document in what ways the ontology is not OWL 2 DL? Not sure. Most of the issues are minor details about the way the ontology is drafted, rather than anything fundamental to the design. The component attachment issue is the only substantive one and we've covered that. So in principle it would be only quite modest work to document and/or work around the DL issues. However, I'm not sure there is any appetite for it. In the couple of years it has been in use no one has reported any problems due to the lack of DL compatibility. It is not the sort of vocabulary or application area were inference beyond RDFS has much value. Given the current slightly indeterminate status of the working group now is definitely not the time to be adding work items, even small ones :) Cheers, Dave
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 09:53:18 UTC