To summarise: This is not allowed in the existing syntax, it would lead to undecidability if it were allowed, and it is not supported by implementations. I therefore propose to postpone it on these grounds. Ian On 3 Dec 2007, at 08:35, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> Isn't this already permitted due to the resolution of issue 64? >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/64 > > No. That just changes the serialization of exisiting chain axioms. > It doesn't introduce new axioms though it does *allow* for new > classes of axioms e.g.,: > > """In OWL 1.1 Full one could use this everywhere, and not just in > the rdfs:subPropertyOf.""" > > Note the "could". > >> (I added a note to the issue clarifying what the resolution was >> and when it was resolved) >> >> -Alan >> >> On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: >> >>> It is possible to extend the spec. to address this? > [snip] > > It's possible to extend the spec. in any number of ways. The > question is whether anyone will implement it. > > Qua implementor, I would strongly prefer that such an extension go > under a rule extension such as SWRL. But I'll also say that I don't > know how to implement SWRL (or this extension) in a reasonable way. > > I would suggest lobbying your favorite implementors for such a > feature *before* trying to add it to the spec. Adding to the spec > doesn't, after all, magically make it available to you. > > Cheers, > Bijan. >Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 09:04:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:01 UTC