W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Issue-114

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:19:23 +0100
Message-Id: <48CE6B00-3167-4819-8CCF-934A4C2CE378@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I propose closing this issue with no change.

We've clearly seen that there is user demand for this feature  
(stated, clearly, by two users).

No technical problem has been raised.

Implementations already support it.

I'll go further and say I don't see, absent a technical issue, this  
support being removed. I will certainly oppose removing supporting  
class/property punning in all the tools I am connected with  
(including a validator I'm writing). Since class/property punning  
will be in OWL Full, we'll be back in the mess of having a pointless  
restriction making some documents nominally OWL Full even though its  
trivial to support in OWL DL. That's a *losing* position for a tool  
vendor. Thus, I think this restriction will be, functionally  
speaking, a dead letter.

Thus, in the absence of a concrete technical motivation, I think we  
should close it. Indeed, absent some evidence of significant WG  
support, I think we shouldn't expend more WG resource on it.  
Obviously, continued scrutiny is warranted, as always, but I don't  
think the current discussion has passed the bar yet.

I would support putting back object/data punning, for that matter.  
The objections there were primarily motivated by syntactic problems  
in *one* (important) serialization. That's unfortunate, not happy  
making.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:17:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC