- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:54:46 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 2 jul 2008, at 13:19, Bijan Parsia wrote: > I propose closing this issue with no change. +1 -Rinke > > 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. ----------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands -----------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:55:22 UTC