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

Re: OWL Lite semantics

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:15:32 +0000
Message-ID: <3DF4DDC4.4070602@hpl.hp.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

I think this comment looks crucial ...


> This is *NOT* simply incompleteness w.r.t. OWL DL/full semantics,
> because a Lite reasoner would be entitled to answer NO to a question
> about entailment when the correct DL/full answer is YES.



I was concentrating on the YES answers.

I will try and make a modification to the proposal that clarifies what 
should or should not be said about entailments that are OWL Full 
entailments but not OWL Lite entailments.

The intent is that they are ones that include class membership or subclass 
relationships on the RHS.

Perhaps a different characterization should be that OWL Lite entailment 
could be a set of pairs of documents

   A owl-lite-entails B

where A is an arbitrary owl lite document, and B uses no RDF, RDFS or OWL 
vocabulary. i.e. owl-lite-entailment does not include any classification tasks.
Since this is a syntactically charcaterized subset the respone of an OWL 
Lite reasoner to does
   X entail Y
is
either YES, NO, "X is not syntactically OWL Lite" or "Y involves special 
vocabulary".

I'll think some more ...


Jeremy
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 13:15:46 GMT

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