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

RE: Characterising OWL consistency checkers

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:09:47 +0000
Message-ID: <15981.50171.661622.294728@merlin.horrocks.net>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

On March 10, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> 
> 
> Some points:
> - I like Ian's words for consistency checker, and will be happy to accept
> them as editorial improvements. If I understand correctly they depend on
> some changes in the S&AS; we currently have consistent defined in S&AS
> rather than test cases, and test cases points to S&AS. This was a WG
> decision (at January f2f), so I would prefer a WG decision to change the
> text to give an in-line definition of "consistent".
> 
> - Ian you give DECIDABLE and UNDECIDABLE as if there is some markup, e.g. a
> link to a glossary? Did you have something in mind?

A glossary would be nice, but I'm not volunteering :-) I capitalised
them on the grounds that they were terms with existing/externally
defined meaning. Pointers to such material might be useful, but I
don't think it is important in this context.


> - If we have a non-empty list of supported datatypes I would like
> rdf:XMLLiteral in it.

You amaze me.


> - Ian suggests integer as a possible required datatype. I have no problem
> with this but wish to clarify that this is an infinite set of integers.

My list is just a placeholder, and I agree that we need to be clear.


> - if we support all derived types of supported types as supported then we
> have a problemette with xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF that we do not recommend, but
> are derived from xsd:string.
> 
> - if we don't support all derived types of supported types, then I suggest
> we should support all finite derived types of xsd:integer.

I suggest we keep the "must support" list as short as
possible. Implementations can then choose to support additional
datatypes within the proposed framework.

Ian

> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
> > Sent: 08 March 2003 20:12
> > To: Jim Hendler
> > Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Characterising OWL consistency checkers
> >
> >
> >
> > On March 7, Jim Hendler writes:
> > >
> > > At 18:02 +0000 3/7/03, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> > > >On March 7, Jim Hendler writes:
> > >
> > > >[snip
> > >
> > >
> > > >Because ALL datatypes/values are interpreted, an OWL reasoner MUST
> > > >"deal with" all datatypes. This isn't a big overhead because
> > > >unsupported datatypes can be treated in a uniform and very lightweight
> > > >manner. If a reasoner claims to support a given datatype, AND it
> > > >claims to be complete, then it has to do more work w.r.t. that
> > > >datatype (the MT formalises just what it has to do).
> > >
> > > yes, but remember that many of our readers won't know this, and thus
> > > I just want to make sure someone says it in novice-understandable
> > > form in our document.  I did very much like what you wrote, wasn't
> > > being critical
> >
> > OK - fair enough. I can try to come up with a few more words.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>    but we need some decision on this
> > > >
> > > >The decision as to which datatypes (if any) MUST be supported by all
> > > >OWL reasoners is obviously one that has to be made by the working
> > > >group. My suggestion is that we make this a fairly short (possibly
> > > >zero length) list.
> > >
> > > actually, I think your ACTION item was to take a first stab at making
> > > a suggestion.  If you want to suggest zero length, that woudl address
> > > your action.  I probably prefer string and integer, but could live
> > > with none.
> >
> > Agreed. Wording could be:
> >
> >   An OWL consistency checker MUST support at least the following XMLS
> >   datatypes: integer, string.
> >
> > There is an issue as to whether we want to include all the sub-types
> > if integer in this list, e.g., int and byte. There is also the
> > question of whether we want to add anything about additional datatypes
> > that OWL "should" support? E.g.:
> >
> >   An OWL consistency checker SHOULD also support the following XMLS
> >   datatypes: ...
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Guus, can you make sure this goes on WG agenda to get resolved on 13th?
> > >   cheers
> > >   JH
> > >
> > > --
> > > Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
> > > Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> > > Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
> > > Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
> > > http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 05:09:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT