- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:34:24 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Apr 2008, at 18:18, Carsten Lutz wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: [snip] >> I guess I agree with you on this point... it would be a shame to >> have the structural restrictions get in the way of something that >> *can* be expressed without changing the semantics. Aren't we then >> just speccing an ill-matched syntax? >> >> How big / numerous do you expect the special cases to be? > > To me, this sounds like opening Pandora's box. I guess there are loads > of special cases that one could allow. Where to start and where to > stop? Moreover, people already find the non-structural > restrictions awkward > and difficult to understand. Now we want non-structural > restrictions with > (potentially a lot of) exceptions to them? <shiver>. > > I like the work of Markus on rules, but I am sceptical to start poking > holes into our non-structural restrictions. Too ad-hoc. Furthermore, in some sense, it's easy to see how to extend it. If implementations can handle some various loosenings (for various reasons) they can. If you use those loosenings, you may have fewer tools that can work with your ontology, but hey, that's ok. If some relaxing turns out to be widely useful then the de facto state of the art will change and a later wg can formalize that. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 17:32:27 UTC