- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 21 Mar 2002 17:22:50 -0600
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 14:28, Ian Horrocks wrote: > On March 21, Libby Miller writes: > > > > > > As noted in the design discussions for DAML+OIL, I don't > > > see sufficient justification for making V disjoint > > > from R. > > > > > > It seems silly not to be able to talk about the intersection > > > of two sets of strings, or UniqueProperty's whose > > > range is dates, or whatever. > > This means that any OWL reasoner has to take on responsibility for > reasoning about types I gather when you say "OWL reasoner" you mean a complete reasoner. I'm not very interested in such a thing. Regular old horn-clause/datalog reasoners (with some built-in predicates like string:lessThan and such) seem to get me what I need pretty well. So this argument about negation and complete reasoning doesn't persuade me that we should keep R and V disjoint. > - which could be a major implementation overhead > (there are also some technical reasons related to negation - full > details can be found in [1]). The current design means that all this > can be delegated to a "type system" (the details of which we don't > need to consider in OWL). > > [1] http://www-lti.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~clu/papers/archive/lutzdiss.pdf > > > > > > > > I agree. It's very counter-intuitive to separate them out. I ran into a > > lot of problems with this, creating a daml schema for icalendar. > > An example would be useful here. > > Ian > > > > > libby > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 18:23:02 UTC