Re: Consistency Checker

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Consistency Checker
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:04:21 +0000

> 
> > 
> > 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.

I expect that heavy-weight implementations of the two would be very
different, so having all five statements would be, in my opinion, useful.


> 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.
> 
> Jeremy


peter