- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:04:15 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Vipul Kashyap <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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