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

RE: Datatypes - help please

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:44:58 +0100
To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEFPCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Ian

I have largely gone with your wording - making one editorial change, and
linking to the definition of datatype theory rather than the section
containing the definition. In-line text is below.

There is also one other point that came up in discussion with Jos which is
what change is needed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Mar/att-0083/M#runningCo
nsistencyChecker

section 5.2

The current text with one addition **ed is:
[[
An OWL Lite consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL Lite
consistency test, must output Consistent or Unknown.

An OWL DL consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL DL or
OWL Lite consistency test, must output Consistent or Unknown.

An OWL Full consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL
Full, OWL DL or OWL Lite consistency test, must output Consistent or
Unknown.

The corresponding inconsistency tests must result in output of Inconsistent
or Unknown **, as long as the datatypes required
by the test are supported by the
datatype theory of the consistency checker**.

A complete OWL Lite consistency checker or a complete OWL DL consistency
checker should not return Unknown on the relevant consistency or
inconsistency tests.
]]

Is that addition sufficient? Or do I need it also for the consistency tests.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
> Sent: 27 March 2003 01:58
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Datatypes - help please
>
> or may not be equal). I would suggest:
>
>    A consistency checker is COMPLETE w.r.t. datatypes supported by its
>    datatype theory, if, given sufficient (but finite) resources (CPU
>    cycles and memory), it will always return either Consistent or
>    Inconsistent.
My text currently reads:

[[
An OWL consistency checker is
complete, with respect to
datatypes supported by its
datatype theory
[OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if, given sufficient (but
finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory)
and the absence of
network errors, it will always return
either Consistent or Inconsistent;
otherwise ...
]]

>
<snip/>
> I suggest:
>
> 	An OWL datatype theory SHOULD minimally support at least the
> 	following XMLS datatypes: integer, string.
>

My text is now:

[[
The datatype theory of
an OWL consistency checker SHOULD minimally support at least
xsd:integer, xsd:string from [XML Schema Datatypes].
]]

>
>
>
> I would continue with the exact characterisation of the five consistency
> checkers agreed at the January f2f (text largely unchanged from current
WD).

>The last 2 (complete Lite/DL) are rather inconsistent/confusing
>w.r.t. the above definition of completeness. It would be better to
>simply say:

>       A complete OWL Lite consistency checker is an OWL Lite consistency
>       checker that is complete.

>       A complete OWL DL consistency checker is an OWL DL consistency
>       checker that is complete.

Agreed

>
> Jeremy
>
>
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 11:45:00 GMT

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