- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:20:13 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
touché Peter dug about in the archives and found me saying: > One way of moving forward would then be to allow classes-as-instances in > all OWLs but to make (large owl) entailments that relate the two (like > this test case) not a Fast OWL requirement (and hence not an OWL Lite > requirement). > > Jeremy > Personally I would be happy with this sort of solution - notice the entailment still holds in Fast OWL (i.e. OWL DL), it is just not a requirement for reasoners to find it (i.e. OWL DL reasoners are no longer expected to provide the same completeneess guarantees). OWL DL would simply be one of several suggested profiles. However, I am expecting in the next few days to actually be appointed as HP rep., and my understanding is that the position I would then be formally representing, would not be my own judgement, but an HP one, which I believe to be rather more heavily against punning than I am myself. As always though, being rep is as much about representing the WG to HP as the other way round. Jeremy PS As you may have noticed I have changed in many ways over the last five years. PPS This presents me with a challenge to dig about in the archives for an appropriate riposte citing a pfps message ... maybe another day PPPS There probably is an archived message from me in which I challenge the myth of the continuity of the self: that seems to have been a repeating theme in my fragmented existence.
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 16:20:43 UTC