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

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

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:53:19 +0100 (CET)
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, 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>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802180946060.7274@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

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