- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:59:42 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "alan.wu@oracle.com" <alan.wu@oracle.com>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Jim, I would ask you to recall [1]. It suggested that we try to "confine ourselves to technical discussion", to "avoid "interpretation" or putting words into other peoples' mouths", and to "look for common ground and work towards consensus". I believe that, if you pause to reflect, you will agree that this email falls short in several respects. At this point I would like to call "time out" on this discussion and ask that we all take several deep breaths before continuing in "a respectful manner". Regards, Ian [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0395.html On 21 Feb 2008, at 21:15, Jim Hendler wrote: > > Peter, sorry, not sure what straw person you are attacking- the > wiki makes it clear that we outlined a starting place and the key > vocabulary elements. The discussion of pd* was, as I understand it, > a request to be responsive to questions about formalization and > completeness, not an attempt to claim a finished language design. > We have not yet set up a mechanism within the WG to do any such > discussion and documentation- when the WG has a proposed design we > can explore these issues more carefully > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 21, 2008, at 15:54, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" > <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > >> >> From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com> >> Subject: Re: completeness >> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:33:50 -0500 >> >>> Alan, >> >> [...] >> >>> In terms of "completeness," I think pD* rules are complete >>> (correct me >>> if I am wrong on this please). >> >> Not quite. The pD* rules need an auxiliary test for contradictions. >> They could probably be made refutation complete. >> >>> And I think pD* vocabulary covers all the >>> core requirements Oracle sees on the field. >> >> I take this to mean that Oracle sees only the following constructs >> involving vocabulary from the owl: namespace >> >> - functional, inversefunctional, symmetric, transitive properties >> - object equality and inequality >> - inverse roles >> - equivalent classes and properties >> - existential, universal, and filler restrictions >> - disjoint classes >> >> This means no cardinalities at all, nor complements, nor deprecation, >> nor imports, nor ontology properties, nor use of owl:Thing or >> owl:Nothing. >> >> It also means no inferences *from* existential restrictions, and no >> inferences *of* universal restrictions. Also no inferences *of* >> unmentioned existential restrictions or unmentioned filler >> restrictions. >> >> Also very limited inference *of* subclass and subproperty >> relationships, >> and equivalent classes and properties. Similarly, limited inference >> *of* same individuals and no inference *of* distinct individuals. >> Also >> no inference *of* property functionality, inverse functionality, or >> symmetricity, transitivity. >> >> To see the sort of thing that is lost in pD*, consider that >> >> p rdf:type C . >> q rdf:type D . >> C owl:disjointWith D . >> >> does not pD* entail >> >> p owl:differentFrom q . >> >> Nor does >> >> p r q . >> >> pD* entail >> >> p rdf:type _:e . >> _:e owl:hasValue q . >> _:e owl:onProperty r . >> >> >> Nor does >> >> p rdf:type _:s . >> _:s owl:someValuesFrom C . >> _:s owl:onProperty r . >> >> pD* entail >> >> p r _:x . >> >> [...] >> >>> Zhe >> >> peter >> >
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2008 22:59:54 UTC