W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Axiomatic Semantics of OWL

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:01:10 +0200
Message-Id: <12E89B66-2138-11D9-BA4B-000A9575BDDE@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: waldinger@AI.SRI.COM, waldinger@kestrel.edu, "www-rdf-logic@w3.org" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
To: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
On 18 Oct 2004, at 10:08, Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> I wonder whether it has been proved that the proposed axiomatisation 
>> - restricted to the OWL-DL fragment - is proved sound and complete 
>> with respect to the published normative model theoretic semantics of 
>> OWL-DL.
>> In other words: how can we be sure that if we use your axiomatisation 
>> for just OWL-DL we get the same behaviour as if we were just using a 
>> standard DL reasoner (already proved to be sound and complete wrt the 
>> published normative model theoretic semantics of OWL-DL)?
> I would assume this would not be the case, since it was already 
> demonstrated in [1, Appendix B.2] that OWL Full semantics allows for 
> more entailments than OWL DL semantics for an OWL DL ontology. So, if 
> it properly implements the OWL Full semantics, it does not properly 
> implement the OWL DL semantics.

Ah-ah. I forgot this. This reminds me that really there is no 
interoperability nor smooth transition  between OWL-DL and OWL-Full. 
These are basically two different ontology languages with little in 
common. The same OWL-DL ontology will behave differently when used by 
an OWL-DL tool wrt an OWL-Full tool.
Not bad for a standard that should enable interoperability.

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 19:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC