Re: Proposed change to the OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime

On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:29, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 30 Nov 2010, at 14:51, Enrico Franconi wrote:
>> On 30 Nov 2010, at 15:45, Birte Glimm wrote:
>>> Yes, and going from one regime to a more expressive one should just
>>> give you more answers I think.
>> Any logical, philosophical, formal argument for this?
> Thus, from a overall usability perspective, I don't think violating this principle, esp. on a common operation, is a good idea. There should be a large user gain for that pain. Thus far, I have only one bit of hearsay evidence (from you) that there are any users of any OWL profile who make routine good use of non-distinguished variables. I would be interested to know more about such users.

WRT non-distinguished variables, this aligns SPARQL with the dominant form of rules for OWL, i.e., DL Safe rules, which is also a good.


Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 15:49:13 UTC