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

Re: Proposal and Test cases

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:47:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080117.094749.154434629.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal and Test cases (Re: skolems: visible differences?)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:55:12 +0000

> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> so entailment with existential semantics is undecidable.
> 
> I don't see this as a problem if we do not specify a conformance label 
> for entailment. 

Say again?

That seems to me to be equivalent to saying that the
decidability/implementability of consistency checking is not a problem
if we don't specify a conformance label for consistency checking, or
that the well-formedness of the syntax is not a problem if we don't
specify a conformance label for syntax checking.   I suppose that
somehow the spec would be internally consistent in this case, but I
don't think that it would be a good idea.

[To inject a bit of US politics, this would be like having judges
elected using a system that requires bribery.  As Thurgood Marshall
might have written: "The W3C does not prohibit working groups from
preparing stupid recommendations."]

In any case, I would vote very strongly against not providing a
"conformance label" for entailment checking for OWL 1.1 DL.

peter
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 15:18:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 January 2008 15:18:16 GMT