RE: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule)

Hi!

This has been an interesting exercise for me at that time, and helped me to
better understand the power of sub property chains. It is nice to see that
something like this can actually be expressed within OWL 2 DL. But directly
supporting this as a feature in the OWL language itself would look rather
strange to me.

So I concur: +1 for REJECTING this issue.

Cheers,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 1:43 PM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule)
>
>
>On 16 January 2008 Bijan added a note to the proposal for ISSUE-22:
>
>  I think we should close this with no action. Here's why:
>
>  1) It's a new feature and there is no concrete proposal and I spent a
>  few minutes trying to think of a syntax and had no good one other than
>  the rule itself
>
>  2) Having just this one rule (which wouldn't be DL safe!) is very
>  strange and might conflict with rule extensions
>
>  3) It seems that the best place for this is in a "Decidable swrl
>  compiler" (as a visitor here was working on). There are *lots* of
>  rules that you can compile using the new expressive property
>  axioms. Why *this* one? Just because we thought of it? Better to
>  encourage the development of these SWRL compilers and leave it to a
>  "decidable fragments of SWRL" group.
>
>  [Bijan Parsia]
>
>There does not appear to have been any futher discussion.
>
>I agree with Bijan's comments, and propose that ISSUE-22 be closed in
>this fashion.
>
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Bell Labs Research