- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:32:11 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Bijan Parsia<bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > On 13 Aug 2009, at 10:31, Ian Horrocks wrote: > >> I agree with what Boris says. There are several features that we excluded >> from RL on the grounds that they would hamper practical implementation. I >> believe that this was one of them. The argument goes that adding owl:Thing >> to the profile would require a rule that adds the relevant type triple for >> every individual. Of course there is nothing to prevent RL implementations >> from dealing correctly with owl:Thing, but they are not required to do so in >> order to be conformant. > > Plus, frankly, owl:Thing instantiation entailments (or assertions) are > silly, given their tautologous nature. They are silly in exactly the same way the owl:Top(Data|Object)Property entailments are silly, no? -Alan
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 05:33:10 UTC