W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: OWL1.1 APis

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:18:38 +0000
Message-Id: <D625F708-DFF1-4ED2-867C-CD3B3AF7963D@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 14 Dec 2006, at 11:11, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Ok, now I'm getting into the second bit :) I don't think this is  
> true, and not a sensible wish anyway. I

When I wrote that, I didn't intend to sound snarky, but rereading, I  
see that it sounds that way.

I just meant that I thought we all wanted there to be more  
entailments with an OWL Full reasoner, so I'm confused as to the  
requirement that, well, there not be any. OWL Full has "more"  
semantics, so an OWL Full reasoners *should* find more entailments.

But perhaps you meant something else?

Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 11:29:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC