- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:52:39 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jim Hendler wrote: > > [snip] > > Sandro: > >> Guideline 9. Allow extensions or NOT! [6] Perhaps I don't understand ... I have been thinking for a bit that OWL DL is not perfect but ... e.g. QCRs well, one could have a nonstandard extension to OWL DL that supported them. e.g. cycles of bnodes forming unnamed individuals; one could permit them in a nonstandard extension e.g. predicates involving more than one data value; one could permit them in a nonstandard extension e.g. URIs for user defined XML Schema simple types; Jena already does allow them in the de facto non standard extension Obviously one needs a strict mode which switches any of this off, but I am not sure what simply forbidding extensions buys us. It seems more to the point to say that extending OWL DL, takes you into OWL Full, in which the degree of interoperability expected is lower. Such extensions seem to be natural. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 05:53:04 UTC