- From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:59:54 -0000
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > - the agreement in the IRC is for five consistency checkers: > Sound Lite/DL/Full > Complete Lite/DL > But the first three are identical, so I have condensed them > to one thing. > > Have I understood correctly, or is there some subtle > difference between an > incomplete OWL Lite consistency checker, and an incomplete OWL Full > consistency checker that I have missed? They're not *necessarily* different, as a sound but incomplete reasoner merely never has to say 'yes' when it should say 'no' and therefore can always say 'no' --- Sean's idea of a pipe to /dev/null coming in again :-). However, they may be *practically* different. It may be easier to write a sound and relatively (but not fully) complete reasoner for Lite than for Full, for example; but it may be easy to write a sound but differently-incomplete reasoner for Full that doesn't do parts of Lite. The easy stuff at a given level doesn't necessarily match the easy stuff at 'easier' sublanguages. So I'd expect to see a plethora of sound but incomplete consistency checkers, and (hopefully!) some sound and complete ones for Lite and DL. Does that help, or have I done my usual water-muddying again? - Peter
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:00:26 UTC