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

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that having an easy to conform to regime is valueless for various implementors, just that that value has costs and must be traded-off against other values. AFAICT, the costs of not having such a regime is rather low.

Again, I'd be happy to chat with users or implementors who feel otherwise to see if my conclusions on this front are wrong. In particular, I'm very curious to know if my experience (starting out very gung ho about non-distinguished variables and coming round to thinking they are really the wrong thing for SPARQL) might cause them to rethink their position. Contrariwise, I'd be interested to see if their use cases would compel me to reverse myself again. I know both Birte and I would be very happy to find substantial, much less, compelling use cases that wouldn't be better handled by explicit class expressions.


Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 17:48:34 UTC