- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:20:11 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Jul 2008, at 14:12, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > Hi, > > On 2 jul 2008, at 15:06, Michael Schneider wrote: >> And Class/Datatype punning? That's disallowed, too, at the moment >> [1]. > > I'd say we subject this type of punning to the same scrutiny as > with the others, in Peter's words: > > On 2 jul 2008, at 14:15, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> to not remove any more punning, on the multiple grounds that it >> has been >> requested, that it doesn't appear to cause any technical problems, >> that >> it has been implemented, and inertia > *snip* >> PS: If the above rationale is not adequate to retain this >> feature, then I >> don't see how any request to add a feature can pass muster. This sounds good to me. I'm not sure why class/datatype punning was removed. If there's no technical reason against it, we should add it back on the grounds that *if* anyone ever does do such punning, implementations will immediately have to accommodate it. I can even think of some cases where I might want to do it (to avoid coining a new name). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:17:56 UTC