- From: Turner, David <davidt@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:52:40 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes > Sent: 09 August 2007 17:24 > Subject: Re: declaredAs > > >Thus the WG will take OWL 1.1 as an input, but, presumably, work to > >flesh out other OWL Full aspects (punning is, in fact, a > move in this > >direction). > > Not really. Im sure it was meant to have this intention, but > the effect of moving to punning is two-fold: it breaks the > OWL Full semantics, and it breaks the semantic connection > between OWL and RDF. I realise that this point has been elaborated on later in this thread, but I wanted to express my general agreement with it anyway. Punning is rather different from what OWL Full does, and you can observe this difference via owl:sameAs: ex:A owl:disjointWith ex:B . ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B . _:x rdf:type ex:A . is syntactically invalid in OWL-1.0 DL, inconsistent in OWL-1.0 Full and consistent in OWL-1.1 with punning (with thanks to Dave Reynolds) Cheers, Dave -- Dave Turner Cube T400, HP Labs Bristol, Filton Road, Bristol BS34 8QZ davidt@hp.com +44 117 3129104 (Work) +44 7962 811627 (Mobile) Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:52:58 UTC