- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:18:30 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 22 Apr 2008, at 17:03, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Thanks Bijan, Uli. > > My use case would be satisfied with the simplest of keys - no > inferred keys and keys only on named classes. Then I would suggest that this isn't not something for the current spec. When convergence on a preprocessing/macro language emerges, it seems like it could easily be handled by that. For now, a fairly simple program could handle it. If we introduce it as a general feature, I think we have to take more care to align it to the easykeys behavior so they are reasonably consistent. Obviously, the right sort of DL Safe rule (i.e., one with sparql/owl queries in the body) would do the job as well. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 16:16:31 UTC