- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 21:21:08 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> It would not be, I guess, although I don't think that this wrinkle is > completely worked out. That is, it might be possible to allow this but I'm > not sure. Yes it seems like a corner case. Related cases would be ones where we had small finite transitive properties defined explicitly. It seems somewhat arbitrary to disallow such ontologies, but on the other hand they are probably sufficiently far from the mainstream that an arbitrary ruling them out (i.e. the current text with a supporting test case) may be the easiest path. Any text I think would need to addressing intension versus extension - a topic which we decided not to open up. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 15:23:00 UTC