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

Re: wording on Unknown returns in Conformance

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:51:47 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0809240951q1b3248bt64510720f99c9375@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> This is not so bad, but it still suffers from the problem that a trivial
> program can be minimally conforming.


Yes. I'm not sure what to do about that, although it might not, in practice,
be too bad as such a program would be laughed out of the room. I'm a little
worried that the current OWL-RL statements suffers similarly. OTOH, I have
thought in the past that the word "complete" ought to be spoken more when
referring to implementations of reasoners/fragments that are - it's a
positive word and brings what I think are the right connotations.

-Alan


>
>
> peter
>
>
> From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: wording on Unknown returns in Conformance
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:37:49 -0400
>
> > I was thinking about something along the lines of (specific words could
> > change). My changes in italics. There's probably a better word than
> > "minimally
> > conforming" but I can't think of one right now.
> >
> > An minimally conforming OWL 2 Full entailment checker is an OWL 2
> > entailment
> > checker that takes RDF documents as input, and uses the RDF-Based
> > Semantics
> > [OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics]. It must return True only when O1 entails
> > O2,
> > and it must return False only when O1 does not entail O2. It may return
> > Unknown if it is not capable of determining whether an entailment holds
> > or
> > not.
> > A complete OWL 2 Full entailment checker is a minimally conforming OWL 2
> > Full entailment checker that should not return unknown.
> >
> > Then, in section 2.2.1
> >
> > It *must* provide a means to determine the semantics it uses (either the
> > Model-Theoretic Semantics [OWL 2
> > Semantics<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test#ref-owl-2-semantics>]
> > or the RDF-Based Semantics [OWL 2 RDF-Based
> > Semantics<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test#ref-owl-2-rdf-semantics
> >]),
> > and whether it is minimally conformant or complete; for example, in its
> > supporting documentation.
> >
> > Similarly for other profiles.
> >
> > I would add a note that at the time of publication it isn't known
> > whether
> > complete conformance for OWL Full is possible.
> >
> > -Alan
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
> > pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> > > Huh?  What is this, and how would it be done.
> > >
> > > peter
> > >
> > > From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: wording on Unknown returns in Conformance
> > > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:17:07 -0400
> > >
> > >> I had thought that it might be worth distinguishing distinct levels
> > of
> > >> conformance - complete versus incomplete. Do you think that would be
> > a
> > >> good idea? It bothers me a bit that conformance as specified for OWL
> > >> Full, as stated now, is not known to be possible.
> > >> -Alan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > >> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > There have been some comments on the "should not" wording in the
> > >> > conformance part of the Test and Conformance document.
> > >> >
> > >> > The current wording includes
> > >> >
> > >> > An OWL 2 Full entailment checker is an OWL 2 entailment checker
> > that
> > >> > takes RDF documents as input, and uses the RDF-Based Semantics [OWL
> > 2
> > >> > RDF-Based Semantics]. It MUST return True only when O1 entails O2,
> > and
> > >> > it MUST return False only when O1 does not entail O2. It SHOULD NOT
> > >> >  return Unknown.
> > >> >
> > >> > Without the last sentence, a trivial checker, i.e., one that always
> > >> > returned "Unknown" would be just as good an OWL 2 Full entailment
> > >> > checker as one that tried hard.
> > >> >
> > >> > Even worse, if the last sentence was removed from
> > >> >
> > >> > An OWL 2 DL entailment checker is an OWL 2 entailment checker that
> > >> >  takes OWL 2 DL ontology documents as input, and uses the Model
> > >> > Theoretic Semantics [OWL 2 Semantics]. It MUST return True only
> > when
> > >> > O1 entails O2, and it MUST return False only when O1 does not
> > entail
> > >> >  O2. It SHOULD NOT return Unknown.
> > >> >
> > >> > then a trivial checker would be just as good as a complete reasoner
> > for
> > >> > OWL 2 DL.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I thus feel that there needs to be some wording in the conformance
> > >> > document to show that trivial checkers, or unnecessarily incomplete
> > >> > checkers, are not as good as ones that return "Unknown" in fewer
> > cases.
> > >> >
> > >> > Remember that "should not" is not the same as "must not".  A
> > checker
> > >> > could return "Unknown" if
> > >> > 1/ it ran out of resources (memory, time, etc.); or
> > >> > 2/ it is an incomplete reasoner (for OWL 2 Full, for example, or
> > even
> > >> >   for OWL 2 DL).
> > >> > The above reasons (or others) could be used by entailment checkers
> > to
> > >> > provide a justification for "Unknown" answers.  I feel, however,
> > that
> > >> > this is outside the scope of the specification.
> > >> >
> > >> > Perhaps it would be useful to add some wording on justifying
> > "Unknown"
> > >> > to the document, but I think that most of this is implied by the
> > use of
> > >> > "should not".
> > >> >
> > >> > peter
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 16:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC