- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:23:51 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Turner, David" <davidt@hp.com>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] > In current OWL 1.1, those ontologies are syntactically legal and > meaningful and their semantics (as far as I can reasonably tell) > coincides with the OWL Full meaning. [Ooops. I was imprecise. It coincides where there is no sameAs between classes or properties, and is a subset when there is.] > Those semantics were also implemented prior to the OWL 1.1 language > design (i.e., in Pellet). No surprises have been reported to me in > the, oh, probably 3 years, that Pellet has had that behavior. Hilog > semantics have never been a feature request either. From anyone. No > one's ever mentioned them at an OWLED. [snip] [No user. I think I mentioned them at the first OWLED when I was trying to elicit user desires about metamodelling.] Cheers, Bijan. Motto of the message: "The pendant of pedantry swings both ways"
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 00:24:08 UTC