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

Re: Consistency Checker

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:17:43 +0000
Message-ID: <3E245447.4070108@hpl.hp.com>
To: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

> 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.

Oh yes, I agree - but in terms of specifying the five different beasts I 
see the one liner

cat > /dev/null; echo "I don't know"

as a Sound OWL Lite, OWL DL and OWL Full consistency checker.
I don't see how to prohibit this implementation except my requiring 
completeness, and that gives complete OWL Lite and complete OWL DL checkers.

In terms of the CR exit criteria we might be looking for five different 
implementations, but in terms of writing a conformance statement I cannot 
think of any words that would distinguish sound but incomplete consistency 
checkers at the three levels.

> 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.

Sketch a few words for three different sound but incomplete bumper 
stickers, and I am happy to polish.

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 13:17:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC