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

Re: OWL semantics

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:19:12 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1C24409E.4E49422D-ONC1256C43.0048ADFD-C1256C43.00492C56@agfa.be>


[1 1/2 month Dan Connolly wrote]

> "relatively complex?" We're talking about 10 horn clauses, for RDFS.
> For OWL, I expect more like 50, but still, hardly a monument
> to engineering.

we now have 52 in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules
$Id: owl-rules.n3,v 1.79 2002/09/29 12:51:29 amdus Exp $
including some inconsistency/incompleteness detections

> And I expect they won't need a FOL reasoner for most applications.
> Jos and cwm are more like pure-prolog engines (with something
> like tabling to deal with loops, but with no negation mechanisms)
> than FOL reasoners.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 29 September 2002 09:19:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT