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

Re: Proposal and Test cases (Re: skolems: visible differences?)

From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:21:53 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1200583313.6470.19.camel@msmith-laptop>

On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 14:55 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 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. We perhaps ought to have a disclaimer concerning 
> entailment and non-entailment tests to that effect.

This suggests to me that you consider interoperability with respect to
consistency tests more important than interoperability with respect to
entailment tests.  Is that in fact the case?  If so, why?

I understand that the 1.0 test document only defined semantic
conformance with respect to consistency, but don't know what motivated
that decision.  Can you (or others with webont history) provide some
pointers to background?

Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 15:22:12 UTC

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