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 10:01:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080117.100105.159103629.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: msmith@clarkparsia.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal and Test cases (Re: skolems: visible differences?)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:21:53 -0500

> 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?

One reason for this is that a sound and complete OWL DL consistency
checker can easily be used to build a sound and complete OWL DL
entailment reasoner.  A move to allow non-tree bnode structures in
consequents in OWL 1.1 DL under the existential reading of bnodes would
mean that this is no longer true, I think, and would require a separate
conformance label for entailment.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 15:28:59 UTC

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