- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 20:43:17 +0100
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 21 May 2008, at 20:29, Boris Motik wrote: [snip intended consequence relation stuff] That works for me. > I do agree that, from a practical point of view, one might want to > stipulate that an ontology has been designed as, say, an EL++ > ontology. We have two possibilities for handling this: > > - We might recognize that this is an orthogonal concern to the > choice of the consequence relation. Therefore, we might add a > different annotation property called, say, owl:syntacticFragment. > > - We might introduce owl:EL++, owl:DL-Lite, and owl:OWL-R-DL, but > say that they are, from the point of view of the consequence > relation, equivalent to owl:DL. We should then say that we merged > the actually orthogonal concerns of selecting the consequence > relation and providing hints into one construct due to practical > reasons. Either of these is fine with me, so is deferring that. It'd be interesting to get some wider feedback. One way to do that is to put a design in the spec and make it prominent. Another is to ask around :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 19:41:33 UTC