Thanks for the comment. Note that the feature is present because of its clear usefulness in rules, which you note. It is *at-risk* due to its perceived difficulty to implement in rule engines. We await implementor feedback on that point.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:email@example.com> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
David Mott wrote: > I believe that the use of equality in the conclusion of a rule implication should > be retained, since there are situations where as a result of reasoning once wishes > to infer that 2 entities are in fact the same.