W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:52:05 +0100
Message-ID: <471F23D5.207@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: schneid@fzi.de, public-owl-dev@w3.org

 >> and then OWL-Full semantics would be totaly
>> broken! Is it this what you (Pat) mean by "whether the OWL semantic
>> conditions are internally consistent..."? 
> Yes, again.


from the abstract:
We also sought a stronger result [...] but it proved impossible to 
achieve this within our time constraints
and from the text
Because of economic
constraints we have made little progress towards a result of this nature,
while the result we were after was stronger than OWL Full being 
consistent, we felt the obstacles were largely ones to do with any proof 
of the weaker consistency result.

The 'economic constraints' meant we had spent the budget allocated for 
proving the result, and failed to either prove or disprove it.

While I remain emotionally committed to the consistency of OWL Full,
(and hope to get further budget for more explorations!) this experience 
makes me intellectually more prepared to acknowledge the sceptical 
position (which Peter often represents).


PS There's some nice positive results in the report too - but the 
negative result is probably the most significant.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 10:52:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC