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

Re: completeness

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:58:30 -0500
Message-Id: <F55DE160-6C46-45F4-803C-82427C403538@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>

Since this question goes to the motivation for this fragment, I would  
like it if Jim, Zhe, and Jeremy, who are the torchbearers, could  
please respond with some guidelines about this, ideally drawn from  
experiences working with customers.


On Feb 20, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Ulrike Sattler wrote:

> Hi,
> I thought I'd share some of my thoughts regarding completeness,  
> scalability, & interoperability that might explain why I keep  
> shouting "what do you mean by *scalable*"?
> 1) Even I can write a very scalable OWL DL query answering engine  
> if it doesn't have to be complete: when asked to retrieve instances  
> of a class C, it simply always only returns nothing...wait, I can  
> even do better by returning "told" instances of C!
> 2) If we agree that (1) is sort of cheating, then we need to be  
> more precise what "completeness" means: now, if we say "my engine  
> will retrieve as many instances of C as it can manage in the given  
> time", then we might get more than the told instances, but we could  
> be  in trouble regarding interoperability: your engine could return  
> a very different answer set from mine, since they have different  
> strengths or optimisation techniques or,e.g., rule orderings.
> So, what I would like to see as a clarification of "we can trade a  
> bit of completeness for some scalability" is a description what  
> *kind* of completeness we give up for (ideally) how much gain in  
> performance.
> Cheers, Uli
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2008 15:59:05 UTC

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