Re: SEM: All OWL reasoners will be incomplete?

[...]

> It is a completely different thing if we can infer the existence of an
> axiom asserting that a property is transitive (as would be the case if
> OWL syntax were in the domain of discourse). In this case, we need to
> perform inference (in a language which is almost certainly
> undecidable) on the ontology in order to determine if it conforms with
> our definition of what is a syntactically valid ontology. I was
> suggesting (in point 1b) that we don't want to go there!

using only 1 engine I can understand your point
however, even for such a simple problem as e.g.
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/etc5.n3
we actually are using 180 engines
by which I mean that engines can produce
evidence for each other and it is not a
difficult problem in control engineering
(there's just no central point of control)
and in that way I don't see any issues
w.r.t. transitive properties

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/