W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: RDF-Based Semantics and n-ary dataranges

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:55:59 +0100
Message-Id: <A302F5ED-535B-4258-A474-227141EB72A4@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 1 Apr 2009, at 20:44, Michael Schneider wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg- 
>> request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:47 PM
>> To: W3C OWL Working Group
>> Subject: RDF-Based Semantics and n-ary dataranges
>>
>> We didn't manage to conclude this discussion.
>>
>> Summary of (my understanding of) the discussion so far:
>>
>> * we all believe that OWL 2 *should* only support unary datatypes/
>> ranges, and that ontology documents including n-ary *should* be non-
>> conformant
>
> Hm, I thought that if C&P extends Pellet by support for certain n-ary
> datatypes, then C&P should still be allowed to call Pellet a  
> conformant OWL
> 2 DL reasoner?

[snip]

Isn't this always the problem with extensions?

But here it's about documents. An OWL Document with n-ary predicates  
in it is not a conforming OWL Document (it is an extended owl  
document). Thus, a conforming OWL reasoner may reject it.

An OWL reasoner which, in some mode, accepts such documents is no  
more non-conforming than if it accepts XML Schema documents and  
checks them for satisfiability or if it accepts HTML and renders it.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 19:52:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 April 2009 19:52:18 GMT