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

Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:44:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080716.124423.156106066.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alan.wu@oracle.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:05:31 -0400

> Hi Peter,
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > I agree with the proposal made by Boris in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0250.html This makes OWL-R a syntactic language, i.e., a true profile.  It
> > simplifies the situation with profiles considerably and usefully.
> >
> > The benefit of OWL-R is that a certain kind of reasoning can be
> > accurately performed in OWL-R written as RDF by using the set of rules
> > provided as a convenience.  In my opinion, no more need be said.  Anyone
> > can decide to implement OWL-R reasoning using this (non-normative) rule
> > set, but there could be other ways to implement OWL-R reasoning (for
> > example, by using a DL reasoner or even a reasoner for higher-order
> > logic).  What counts is the correctness of the implementation.  Implementors are also free to use this rule set for other purposes, such
> > as on RDF graphs that do not fit within the OWL-R profile, just
> > as they would be free to use a higher-order reasoner.   Any
> > modifications to the implementation technique required for these
> > additional purposes are beyond the scope of our specification.  In fact,
> > I would go so far as to not include Boris's proposed addition to Section
> > 4.4
> > 	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.
> > as being obvious and not useful in our specification.
> >
> >   
> This is pretty obvious with the way the OWL R FULL section is written. It is no longer that obvious with
> the proposed changes. Not to me at least :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Zhe

Well, I'm not much against putting the sentence in, I just don't see the
need for it.  If others want the sentence in, then I'm fine with that.
If other think that the sentence causes problems, I'm fine with leaving
the sentence out.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 16:45:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 July 2008 16:45:23 GMT