- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:20:40 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Proponents of punning would label this: > > "OWL DL, now with more, but not all, of OWL Full goodness" > To some extent this is about labelling .... I have been surprised how strongly some of my colleagues feel about this issue - my original take, and still my personal prejudice (but not the position I represent) is that punning is simply an area in which the DL implementations are incomplete. I suspect, but have not checked, that many of the WG would be unhappy with such a position though - and since it would take me some effort to convince HP of it - I haven't given either task much thought. i.e. - semantically using the same name for say, a class and an individual, has the consequences that one might expect from OWL Full - the OWL DL profile is incomplete, in that, consequences resulting from punning are not computed (but still legal OWL consequences). i.e. an OWL DL reasoner may implement punning in the way that OWL 1.1 reasoners currently are doing so, but the resulting (lack of) entailments is incomplete. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 14:21:10 UTC