- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:12:10 +0100
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Conrad as far as I could understand your use cases were intended as use cases for punning. I would like to understand: a) why OWL 1.0 Full does not address these use cases to your satisfaction b) why the (lack of) semantics for punning offered in OWL 1.1 may be helpful in these cases i.e. it is clear that sometimes we do want to blur the distinctions between classes properties and individuals. But when we do, it is not simply to do with allowing the same name to be used to refer to a class, a property and an individual which have no relationship between them (other than the spelling of their name); the use cases for using the same name are to do with underlying semantic relationships between the class, the property and the individual. Since the OWL 1.1 member submission does not include a design for these relationships, it would be helpful if you could clarify whether you believe your use cases are: - sufficiently important that we should try and address your use cases with new design, within OWL DL, during the lifetime of this WG - or ones for which we should document that OWL Full is the currently recommended solution, pending a better 'punning' design, which includes some semantics for OWL 1.2 or 2.0 .... Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 11:12:49 UTC