- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanr@mumble.net>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:31:08 -0400
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Cristiano Longo <cristiano.longo@tvblob.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
I didn't suggest removing it. I suggested modularizing the ontology so that the portion is OWL DL can easily be used without having to hack anything. I suggested doing that in a way that the OWL Full version remained the same, without making it more difficult to keep two versions in sync, by using owl:imports to have the Full version include the portion that is OWL DL. In other situations, I have made suggestions, on the FOAF side of things, for how to improve it, and on the OWL side of things on how to make it possible for OWL2 to work with FOAF as is (or with minor changes) What makes you think I want to harm FOAF? -Alan On Jun 15, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> It's OWL, but not OWL-DL. >> I would very much like there to be an OWL-DL version too, or at >> least to factor it into two components - an OWL-DL portion, and a >> set of further axioms that are imported by OWL full users. > > Why don't you hack your OWL DL reasoner so it just ignores the fact > that something is an InverseFunctionProperty when it is also a > DatatypeProperty? Just because the reasoner can't handle it, there > is no reason to remove this valuable (essential) information from > the ontology. > > Tim > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2008 22:57:26 UTC