Re: Allowed types of punning (ISSUE-114)

• From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
• Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:38:19 +0100
• To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <E6631B3A-6692-4E8A-9898-9F4D1B258211@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Jul 10, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> You may remember that the OWL 1.1 proposal allowed unrestricted  
> punning. The current inability to pun between Datatypes and Classes  
> and the among Object, Data, and Annotation Properties results from  
> perceived problems with the RDF serialization that allowed  
> unrestricted punning and the extra mis-alignment between DL and  
> Full that comes from this unrestricted punning.   A number of  
> working group members reluctantly allowed the above arguments to  
> overcome the coherent design in OWL 1.1, and went so far as to  
> design the current situation.

[snip]

And, of course, right now, this removal is considered to cause  
problems with other sorts of punning. Which is a technical problem  
(of sorts) with the removal. So we should put object/data punning  
back in.[*]

Cheers,
Bijan.

* I know Alan has a problem with the "discrete" interpretation of  
cardinality over punning vs. the unity, but that's just an issue of  
which semantics to use.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 08:38:55 UTC