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

What I think I'm hearing is a proposal for an *informative* section  
in the documents giving a (possibly incomplete) definition of OWL, in  
the interest of making it more understandable.

-Alan

On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> 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 ....
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>