- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:27:28 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 22, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > 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. Hi Bijan, Why wouldn't you think it is something for the current spec? Not for the proposed implementation, but it would seem to me to be within scope of the goals of easy keys, and my impression was that the feature drove the implementation, rather than the other way around. And if a fairly simple program can handle it, so much the better! > 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. If the named classes (as actual individuals) are considered as what the keys are related to (rather than the punned individuals), then there is no way for any key to be inferred at all, is there? So if we said that in both cases inferred keys are considered in the rule (trivially satisfied by there being none possible for the class keys) then is that not viewable as 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 19:28:10 UTC