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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:52 -0500
Message-Id: <0BCFEB12-CB0D-4830-BE3F-74DFC7D0F8F2@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, 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>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

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
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 08:44:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 February 2008 08:44:25 GMT