- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:56:51 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 11, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> On Jul 10, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Boris Motik wrote: >> >>> "The rules from Section 4.3 can be applied to arbitrary RDF >>> graphs, in which case the produced consequences are sound but not >>> necessarily complete." >> >> One thing to consider with this last bit, is that there is >> issue-117 and discussion at the F2F had leaned towards saying that >> non-entailments in OWL-R would not be sanctioned. Thus "complete" >> would need to be qualified - the entailments might be complete in >> the sense that no others are sanctions, but incomplete with >> respect to a more expressive language. > > Just for the record, at the time, I understood that discussion > *not* to be about additional RDF graphs. Indeed, neither did I. I thought OWL-R was going to be a profile of OWL, along the same lines as the other profiles. Let's see what Zhe has to say. -Alan
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 07:57:33 UTC