W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

RE: Sketch: reasoning conformance levels (was RE: Issue: Add hasValue to OWL Lite)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 20:03:06 +0100
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Deborah McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEOGCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Old version:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0075.html

New version (see *** OWL Lite for reasoners)

Language tools without a reasoning capability MAY claim "OWL Lite
conformance" if they can:
+ handle all OWL Lite constructs
+ distinguish RDF/XML documents that conform with OWL Lite from those that
do not
+ provide support for name separation,

Language tools without a reasoning capability MAY claim "OWL DL conformance"
If they are OWL Lite conformant and they can:
+ handle all OWL constructs and, if appropriate
+ distinguish RDF/XML documents that conform with OWL DL from those that do
not

Language tools without a reasoning capability MAY claim "OWL full
conformance" if they are OWL DL conformant and they provide support for
classes-as-instances (i.e. name separation support can be switched off).


Reasoning components MAY claim "OWL DL reasoning" (aka "complete OWL DL
conformance") if they provide complete reasoning over OWL DL. i.e. An "OWL
DL reasoner" MUST find proofs for all OWL DL inferences. An OWL DL reasoner
MAY find proofs for any OWL full deduction.
A system which claims "complete OWL DL conformance" must also be OWL DL
conformant (as above).

***

Reasoning components MAY claim "OWL Lite reasoning"  if they provide
complete reasoning over OWL Lite, bounded above by OWL Full. i.e. An "OWL
Lite reasoner" MUST find proofs for all OWL Lite inferences. An OWL Lite
reasoner MAY find proofs for any OWL full deduction.
A system which claims "OWL Lite reasoning" must also be OWL DL conformant
(as above).


Unchanged:
==========

Documents MAY be described as OWL Lite if they do not use any constructs not
in OWL Lite, if they respect name separation, and do not require more than
OWL Lite reasoning for the intended use.

Documents MAY be described as OWL DL if they respect name separation, and
conform to the abstract syntax restrictions.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 14:04:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT