On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > 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 ^^^^^^^^ Don't understand. Do you mean "OWL full semantics"? > of making it more understandable. Should we decide to put OWL Prime into rec as a fragment of OWL Full (which still makes a lot of sense to me), then there will be a fragment of OWL Full with a fully specified rule-based semantics on rec. Having this and only an informative section about OWL Full semantics is surely possible, but seems slightly odd to me. Just my 2c. greetings, Carsten > -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 >> >> > > -- * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden * * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de *Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 08:53:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 February 2008 08:53:32 GMT