W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: OWL Full proposal (sort of) - addressing my Action

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:25:04 +0000
Message-ID: <47B45D50.2010807@hpl.hp.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Ivan Herman wrote:
> I *always* use those entailement rules to explain, 

I think OWL gets too complicated to express only by means of rules.

I am trying to make a formal point, that I am sure somewhat else could 
make better.

Essential rules work for RDF, RDFS, and even pD* because if you apply 
all the rules until they can't apply anymore (and take appropriate steps 
with certain problems) you can end up with a workable piece of code (for 
example Jena rules).

But this approach fails if taken to the limit.

I guess it would be possible to have a set of rules that was not 
practical in that way (that the closure is badly infinite, i.e. infinite 
in ways which you can't work around), which did articulate the semantics 
of OWL ....

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 15:25:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC