- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:40:13 +0100
- To: Rob Shearer <rob.shearer@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 10 Jul 2008, at 12:25, Rob Shearer wrote: > I believe I might have been the person who raised the initial issue > about object-property/data-property punning, I don't think so, but we'd have to go back to the archives. See Peter's prior message. > but was not a party the process of fixing the problem. I continue > to feel that such punning is a) not useful, and b) extremely likely > to cause (and exacerbate existing) user error. User confusion > between object and data properties is quite common in practice, and > right now misuse can be detected as a syntax error. Allowing such > punning would make these common errors completely undetectable This isn't true at all. It's perfectly detectable, just not a syntax error. You can detect it syntactically and a good lint tool should do exactly that. > ---users would just get very different semantic effects than they > intended. I very much hope we're not going to re-open an issue that > has already been addressed and solved. It seems that if, as Alan has argued, that not having property/object punning makes punning in general more confusing such that we have to add more restrictions, then that seems like new information. I, for one, when agreeing to remove data/object (and class/datatype) punning thought that the primary issue that necessitated removal was the RDF disambiguation problem. (The precise semantics of cardinality over punned properties is an issue, but not one that formed the primary basis of the decision.) Given the new information, it's perfectly reasonable to revisit the issue. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 11:37:57 UTC