- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 21:36:53 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
So: 1) intention hiding and non-roundtrippable; plus it frustrates the hell out of users when you silently change what they wrote 2) non-orthogonal; we need the general form in order to handle larger cardinalities anyway, so would have to impose a rather strange restriction 3) unnecessary; if users want to write their ontologies this way (so as to be compatible) then can easily do so, or postprocess. Furthermore, you could have a preprocessor before your old tool that did this, no need to build in this kind of strangeness into the base language. I propose closing this, with no change, on these grounds. I don't think we need to note the equivalence in the spec either (there are lots of equivalences...I don't see why this one is particularly interesting). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2008 20:37:34 UTC