- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:54:09 -0500
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Irene, As a general rule, I think we should keep the SHACL model as simple as possible to make life easier for our target users. I think we can keep within the bounds of DL. What is your opinion? -- Arthur On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > Arthur, > > Prior to OWL 2, OWL DL indeed had a strict limitation regarding > disjointness of classes and individuals, but this limitation was removed > in OWL 2 even for DL. Users wanted to be able to have the same thing as a > class and an individual and further work on the tableau algorithms for DL > revealed that they can cope with this. At least, this is my understanding > of where things stand today. > > Best, > > Irene Polikoff > > > > > On 11/12/15, 2:24 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Irene, >> >>I am referring to OWL DL. The partitioning of things into classes, >>properties, and individuals allows you to express description logics >>in OWL. This is a restricted style of modelling which is simpler to >>understand and makes certain computations more tractable. >> >>-- Arthur >> >>On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> >>wrote: >>> I may have mentioned this before, but in case I didn¹t, I do not believe >>> it is correct to say that the idea behind OWL is not to allow >>>meta-classes >>> and to have classes, properties and individuals to be disjoint. >>> >>> Irene Polikoff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/11/15, 11:24 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>I feel that people have an easier time understanding models in which >>>>meta-classes are absent. This is the idea behind OWL and description >>>>logic in which things are either classes, properties, or individuals. >>> >>> > >
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 12:54:38 UTC