- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:36:48 +0000
- To: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
As Mike says, we already had an *extensive* discussion about this before deciding on the current solution. I don't see that the LC comment adds any new information, so why would be reopen the issue? Ian On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:16, Mike Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 05:40, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> In the current version of OWL QL, owl:sameAs (if you prefer, same >> individual assertion:-) is disallowed. Having checked with Boris (and >> also chatted with Bijan) it seems that the reason is that this >> leaves it >> open to possibly extend QL *either* to include owl:sameAs *or* >> (exclusive 'or') functional properties. >> >> In my view, it would be better to include one or the other to the >> document to make the QL standard profile clearer and cleaner for >> users. >> Introducing a loophole of extra extension would reduce the >> usability of >> QL in my view, mainly in terms of interoperability. >> >> The LOD movement, for better or worse, has already made an >> extensive use >> of owl:sameAs in linking billions of triples stemming from public >> databases. In view of that use case, my proposal is to _add_ the same >> individual assertion into OWL QL. That would make OWL QL way more >> attractive for an important user community. > > This was one side of the discussion in [ISSUE-133]. I believe that > the email discussion linked to that issue (including the compromise > resolution [1]) are relevant when considering this LC comment. > > -- > Mike Smith > > Clark & Parsia > > [ISSUE-133] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/133 > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Sep/ > 0017.html >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 12:37:23 UTC