W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Proposed change to the OWL-2 Direct Semantics entailment regime

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:45:44 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikqYSfB-wVqva03MZLDwZ5iE3Bd0r-ty1=iWzXu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
[snip]
>> I think a spec is about making these decisions, so we should leave
>> these things up to choice by allowing both and I to me it is also
>
> This was rather garbled to me.

Even to mee reading it again ;-) Apart from missing a not, there are
some other words missing (I shouldn't think faster than I can
write...)

I wanted to say (hopefullt clearer this time) that we should NOT leave
these things up to choice. We'll then have implemenations that do one
things, others that do the other thing and implementors who implement
both with extra effort and then let users choose. We should come to a
decision here IMO.

>
>> important to not let OWL Drect Semantics diverge too much from the
>> rest of SemWeb languages.
>
>
> There's two versions of this: Not diverging from *specs* and not diverging from *practice*.  I think the latter trumps the former.

Yes, and going from one regime to a more expressive one should just
give you more answers I think.

Birte

> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 14:46:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT