- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:19:23 +0100
- 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