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

Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:10:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030617.101019.52368530.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue
Date: 17 Jun 2003 08:53:55 -0500

> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 08:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [...]
> > Well, I am arguing over what it means to be an OWL reasoner.  
> 
> It would be more clearly relevant to the work of this group
> if you used terms from the specs. I don't recall
> seeing "OWL reasoner" in the spec.
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

In Test, Section 7.1.14 owl:equivalentProperty test 002

	A reasoner can also deduce ...

In Test, Section 7.3.1

	... within an OWL reasoner.

In Overview, Section 3.1

	rdfs:subClassOf ... From this a reasoner can ...

	rdfs:subPropertyOf ... From this a reasoner can ...

	rdfs:domain ... From this a reasoner can ...

and about 25 other examples.


In Reference, Section 4.4

	From this an OWL reasoner should ...

In Reference, Section 8.2

	... an OWL reasoner.

In Reference, Section 8.3

	... complete reasoners for OWL Lite.

In S&AS, Section 1

	Developers of reasoners and other semantic tools for OWL ...


So not only is the concept of an OWL reasoner mentioned in the OWL specs,
but the exact phrase ``OWL reasoner'' is mentioned.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 10:10:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT