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

RE: A minor bug in OWL 2 RL - Theorem PR1

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:33:46 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0F987EC@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Boris Motik
>Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:16 AM
>To: 'Ivan Herman'; 'Bijan Parsia'
>Cc: 'W3C OWL Working Group'
>Subject: RE: A minor bug in OWL 2 RL - Theorem PR1
>
>
>Hello,
>
>OK, fixed. Thanks everyone!

I found two additional points:

* A trivial typo: "respe[c]tively" (in the first line of the paragraph
starting by "Furthermore").

* I wonder why I did not see/ask this before: I don't understand why the
claim in the theorem starts with "O_1 entails O_2 under the OWL 2 RDF-Based
semantics [...]". Why OWL 2 Full? O_1 and O_2 are actually in Functional
Syntax, so at least formally OWL 2 Full cannot be applied. But more
importantly, AFAIR, the idea of the proof was approximately that the triple
rules and the /Direct/ semantics produce identical conclusions as long as
only ABox axioms are regarded on the RHS of entailment queries. Do I miss
something?

Michael



Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 18:34:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 January 2009 18:34:27 GMT