W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2003

RE: OWL Comment: have long CR period for OWL, or move owl:oneOf, owl: have Value to OWL Full

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 25 Jun 2003 09:47:42 -0500
To: "Merry, Martin" <Martin_Merry@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <1056552461.8713.1031.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 05:16, Merry, Martin wrote:
[...]
> 
> My interpretation of this is that you do not expect a complete consistency
> checker for OWL DL to exist;

I expect them to exist.

Its running time is less predictable for problems involving
certain constructs (oneOf and inverse or some such) but
it still finds an answer, eventually. I gather it falls
back to a first-order reasoner in these cases.

[...]

> If it is the case that there are complete implementations of OWL DL that
> have acceptable performance and are available on terms compatible with the
> W3C patent policy

Er.. the W3C patent policy doesn't have any terms that relate
to the availability of software. Only terms that
relate to patent licenses.

>  then I would be very pleased to hear it, and you can
> safely ignore any of these comments.  However, given your comments earlier I
> assume that the intended status of OWL DL is
> 
> * it is decidable
> * there are implementations of a number of different proper subsets.

I expect complete implementations of OWL DL (for an empty
datatype theory).


> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0023.html
> > 

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 10:47:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:46 GMT