From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:08:42 +0200

Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A001545F48@judith.fzi.de>

To: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:08:42 +0200

Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A001545F48@judith.fzi.de>

To: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

>-----Original Message----- >From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:49 AM >To: Michael Schneider >Cc: W3C OWL Working Group >Subject: Re: Possibly wrong use of RL-theorem in the Conformance spec > >The idea is to identify circumstances under which the RL rules are >complete, i.e., where they can be correctly used to determine non- >entailment. I always understood theorem TR1 to show a relationship between what was formerly known OWL 2 RL-DL and OWL 2 RL-Full, i.e. where these two languages coincide. >Is it not the case that a direct semantics non-entailment >where the two ontologies satisfy the conditions in Theorem PR1 is >also an RDF-based semantics non-entailment? I have to admit that I have never before thought about this question (probably due to my original understanding of the theorem as stated above). Well, hard to tell. The RDF-based semantics definitely provides, in some situations, additional entailments compared to the Direct Semantics. The question is whether this is also the case under the restrictions given by TR1. It would need some careful investigation of the whole semantics to find this out (or some sudden inspiration for its refutation ;-). The result would be some sort of "little sister" of the OWL 2 correspondence theorem. Regrettably, I won't find the time to check this, at least for the remainder of the CR phase. I have even still to work on the correspondence theorem itself, where I already know of several bugs that need to be fixed in the next two weeks (but *this* was always on my schedule at least :). >Ian Best, Michael >On 3 Jul 2009, at 20:29, Michael Schneider wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> In Section 2.3.1 of the Conformance spec, appended to the >> definition of an "OWL 2 RL entailment checker", there is the >> following note: >> >> [[ >> Note that it follows from Theorem PR1 of Profiles [OWL 2 Profiles] >> that it is always safe for an OWL 2 RL entailment checker >> using the RDF-Based Semantics >> to return False if: >> ... several conditions ... >> ]] >> >> But the actual theorem PR1 does only make a assertion about the >> relationship between the RL ruleset and the *Direct Semantics*. >> Nothing is said about the RDF-Based Semantics by that theorem. >> >> So I believe that in the above note, the term "RDF-Based Semantics" >> has to be replaced by the term "Direct Semantics". >> >> Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider ======================================================================= FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus =======================================================================Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 07:09:23 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:13 UTC
*