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

Issue-111 another angle and questions

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 03:22:11 -0400
Message-Id: <B1491DB5-7707-47A5-AC62-EB2D16958A4B@gmail.com>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I alluded to there being another angle on the issue of signaling user  
intent at our last meeting. Specifically I am thinking of the case  
where there is necessity in addition to intent. So suppose you are  
sending a message which is an OWL ontology, and which you need to  
have interpreted correctly. Should there be a way  to be indicate  
than unintended entailments should not to be made and/or  that the  
message can't be properly processed unless reasoning is complete?  If  
so, does it make sense to have such a statement anywhere but at the  
top level ontology O which is sent as the message? If only at the top  
level, one thought is that such an indication means: Ensure that the  
axiom closure is within the syntactic bounds of indicated profile,  
and there are is no other indication of necessary profile different  
from the one at top level in any ontology in the imports closure.

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 07:28:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC