- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:46:48 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
We didn't manage to conclude this discussion. Summary of (my understanding of) the discussion so far: * we all believe that OWL 2 *should* only support unary datatypes/ ranges, and that ontology documents including n-ary *should* be non- conformant * some of us believe that the existing spec actually says this (but some additional explication may be useful) * the structure of n-ary restrictions is defined in SS&FS, but (hopefully) only the unary case can occur in conforming ontologies (as above) * Michael believes that as a result the RDF-Based semantics is broken * Peter doesn't agree. Comments? Ian
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 18:47:35 UTC