- From: Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:08:15 -0700
- To: Dimitrios Koutsomitropoulos <kotsomit@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr>
- CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Dimitrios Koutsomitropoulos wrote: > [1] Gasse, F., Sattler, U., & Haarslev, V. (2008). Rewriting Rules into > SROIQ Axioms. Proceedings of the 2008 International Workshop on Description > Logics (DL-2008). I just read "Rewriting Rules into SROIQ Axioms" Brilliant! This is exactly what I meant about putting the rules for using an OWL ontology into the ontology. Here is my pressing issue. The OWL language goes to great lengths to be monotonic and decidable, but cannot express what to do with contradictions. For example: DisjointClasses(Human, City) ClassAssertion(Washington, Human) ClassAssertion(Washington, City) Contradictions like this are inevitable. For me to be able to use OWL without needing to extend it with an external rules language, an OWL ontology needs to be expressive enough to say what to do if someone inserts a contradictory assertion. This is such an obvious "use case" that it may be been talked to death already. Will some future version of OWL be expressive enough to give a rule for resolving contradictions? Thanks, - Jeff
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 21:08:53 UTC