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

Re: S&AS: Treatment of imports in RDF-Compatible Semantics

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:20:28 -0400
Message-ID: <3ECCCE9C.3D466F9B@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Jim Hendler wrote:
> 
> At 4:15 AM -0400 5/22/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> >Subject: Re: S&AS: Treatment of imports in RDF-Compatible Semantics
> >Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 03:52:24 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> >>  Yes, there is an oversight here.  I propose, however, to instead use
> >>
> >>    Definitions: Let K and Q be imports-closed collections of RDF graphs.
> >>    [... as before]
> >>
> >>  peter
> >
> >On further reflection, I propose to leave the definition the same, but to
> >add wording to the effect that entailment is best carried out on
> >imports-closed collections, as follows:
> >
> >
> ><p>
> >OWL Full entailment as defined here is not the service that should be
> >provided by OWL tools.  Instead, OWL tools should provide a service that
> >first computes the imports closures and then determines whether one
> >imports-closed collection entails the other.
> ></p>
> >
> >peter
> 
> I would oppose that - we have continually avoided expressing things
> in processing terms, and I definitely do not want a reference to what
> OWL tools should do in a normative document.   I'm much happier with
> the first solution above.
>   -JH
> 

I also prefer the "Let K and Q be imports-closed collections of RDF
graphs." wording.

Jeff
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 09:20:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT