W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: question: datatype reasoning?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:10:52 +0000
Message-ID: <3E42890C.5060902@hpl.hp.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

> We agreed at the Manchester f2f that this should go in the test doc:
>    RESOLVED: The test document should specify the conformance clauses for
>    OWL Lite, DL, and FULL documents
> and I note that the Test doc does indeed contain a section on OWL
> reasoners. This would be the obvious place to add a statement about
> support for datatypes.

Yes I am happy to include such modifications, I suggest we need a brief 
telecon resolution to do so.

> One *SERIOUS PROBLEM* is that the existing statement is
> incorrect/inadequate. It should say that a reasoner is unsound if it
> *either* shows an entailment in a non-entailment test *or* shows a
> non-entailment in an entailment test (and similarly for consistency).
> A incomplete reasoner is one that may return a "don't know" answer.

Fine, I will review the wording and rephrase - but not right now.
DanC has also asked for wording changes to expand on the phrase "logically 

Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:11:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC