- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:24:29 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 13 Dec 2007, at 16:04, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > I have had a discussion with Uli about this, and it seems that a > limited form of this would not compromise decidability - e.g. no > binary comparisons other than equality. She said she would write up > a proposal. ...I seem to remember that i agreed to have a think (!) about it - and I had: it seems to me that (i) we would need to "fork" OWL11 in a difficult to understand way (i.e., you can either use datatype properties at the end of property chains or, say, comparisons, but not both), and (ii) we would need to ask implementors whether they would be willing to implement this. I would thus favour to not allowing them at all....Carsten? Cheers, Uli > -Alan > > On Dec 13, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> >> Issue-8 asks for property chains that end with data properties. >> >> Adding this construct to OWL 1.1 would compromise decidability. >> This feature would automatically be in an OWL Full version because in >> OWL Full data properties are also object properties. >> >> Later discussion asked whether having data properties in the >> middle of >> a chain can be done. >> >> In OWL 1.1 such chains would have an empty extension, and thus be >> useless. The situation in OWL Full is the same as for data >> properties >> at the end of a chain. >> >> I therefore propose that we CLOSE ISSUE-8 (even though it is not even >> OPEN) without doing anything on the twin grounds that it both >> compromises decidability in OWL 1.1 and is not handled by tools, and >> that there is nothing special that needs to be done in OWL Full. >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> Bell Labs Research >> >> PS: I'm proposing handling ISSUE-8 in this manner as is it is closely >> related to ISSUE-83. >> > >
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 18:25:50 UTC