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 19:04:21 +0000
Message-ID: <3E245F35.1090301@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org

> Also, a sound OWL Lite consistency checker would not be required to even
> accept documents that were not OWL Lite, whereas a sound OWL Full
> consistency checker is obligated to not barf on such documents that are OWL
> Full documents.  I suppose that you could build a sound OWL Full
> consistency checker from a sound OWL Lite consistency checker by simply
> absorbing any barfing and returning a ``don't know'' answer.  This would be
> a bit silly however, as recognizing OWL Lite is harder than recognizing OWL
> Full.

A phrase like:

a (sound) owl YYY consistency checker accepts OWL YYY documents and returns 
[yes/no/don't know]

does mean that an owl lite consistency checker is not necessarily an owl 
full consistency checker, but is the difference big enough to justify five 
conformance statements instead of three? An OWL Lite consistency checker 
and an OWL Full consistency checker are very minor variants of each other.

Every OWL Full c.c. is an OWL Lite c.c.
Every OWL Lite c.c. when piped through
| sed -e s/Barf/DontKnow/
is an OWL Full c.c.

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 14:04:36 UTC

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