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

RE: Sketch: reasoning conformance levels

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:14:38 +0100
To: "Stanton, John" <StantonJ@ncr.disa.mil>, "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEKCCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> I like the clearly defined levels of conformance.
> "Almost" conforming software is one of the reasons
> DoD still buys mostly all Microsoft products.
>

I think there is some buy-in to trying to get two clear statements of
reasoning conformance:
 OWL DL  - this seems relatively easy, basically complete with respect to
the OWL DL semantics.

 OWL Lite - this seems more problematic.
   - can we specify a non-onerous relationship owl-lite-consequence
(subrelationship of owl entailement) so that all owl-lite reasoners:
MUST
 If A owl-lite-consequence B prove that A owl-entails B.
MUST NOT
  Prove A owl-lite-entails B if A does not owl entail B.

A very simply way would be to mark some of the test cases as
owl-lite-conformance tests. We probably also want a statement of principle.
But there could be an OR there.
e.g.
 A owl-lite-entails B if
   either there is a test case marked as an owl-lite entailment
   or some words to be defined.

We would then try to mark all the test cases which were covered by the
words, and maybe some others that we thought appropriate.

Jeremy

===
That MUST NOT clause looks very general:

Soundness:
Any conforming OWL reasoner (at any level) MUST NOT prove B from A if the
OWL entailment does not hold in OWL Full.

Anyone unhappy with that?

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 09:14:58 GMT

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