Re: draft response for 47 / MK1 (discussed in F2F5)

Maybe worth adding a small example on the usability of non-functional 
keys? My example: I have two passport numbers: one Hungarian and one 
French. Ie, the passport number property should not be functional for 
me, but if I create a key which combines that with my nationality, then 
it works as a (pair) of keys...

Cheers

Ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [Draft Response for LC Comment 47] MK1
> 
> Dear Marijke,
> 
> Thank you for your message
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0062.html
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.  This response
> addresses the second and third parts of your message. 
> 
> The OWL working group realizes that keys are often functional (and thus
> 1:1).  OWL in general does not have a requirement that properties are
> functional.  Non-functional keys may be useful in some applications, so
> the OWL working group has worries that requiring keys to always be
> functional would interfere with some potential uses of OWL.
> 
> In any case, as you say, properties can be made functional in OWL,
> either locally or globally, and this provides for functional keys.
> Therefore, the OWL working group does not intend to change OWL 2 or to
> make any changes in the OWL 2 document in response to your comment.
> 
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. 
> 
> Regards,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf