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

Re: datatyping in test for Pat's review

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:43:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3ECCD3E6.40800@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-webont-wg@w3.org



pat hayes wrote:

> (Sending this quickly, more comments later.  -Pat )
> 
> section 4.1.2.
> model/satisfying interpretation (Neither the RDF nor OWL documents uses 
> 'model' in this technical sense.)
> 
> 2nd 'consistent' is potentially misused (referring to an 
> interpretation), suggest
> consistent with the constraints ... /satisfies all the constraints ....
>


Proposed rewording of this section.
Note: this too some extent goes beyond the remit I felt I had after the LC 
vote, but I suspect it would be churlish of me to refuse. This new text 
conforms more closely with what the WG discussed at the January f2f.

OLD TEXT:
[[
4.1.2. Semantic Conformance
An OWL document is consistent with respect to a datatype theory [OWL 
Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if and only if there exists some model of 
the document that is consistent with the constraints specified by the 
relevant model theory (see [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]: OWL Lite 
and OWL DL, OWL Full).
]]

NEW TEXT:
[[
4.1.2. Semantic Conformance
An OWL Lite or OWL DL document is consistent with respect to a datatype 
theory [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if and only if
a corresponding collection of OWL DL ontologies in abstract syntax form 
with a separated vocabulary is simulataneously
<a 
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/direct.html#direct_consistent"
 >consistent</a> with respect to the datatype theory.

An OWL Full document is consistent with respect to a datatype theory [OWL 
Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if and only if it is a member of an
imports closed collection of RDF graphs which is OWL Full consistent with
respect to the datatype theory.
]]
with "imports closed" and "OWL Full consistent" linked to their definitions in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/rdfs.html

The second paragraph is slightly broken since the datatyping in the rdfs 
part of OWL S&AS is conspicuous by its absence, but I believe Peter will 
fix that.

The new text defers as much as I can to S&AS and all the technical terms 
are taken from S&AS.

 
> 4.2.2
> Im still not happy with the way that conformance is stated.
> 

<discussion snipped>


> The cheapest way around this would be to add a remark when you give the 
> definition of 'complete' to indicate that this sense is not the standard 
> sense. For example
> "This is stronger than the usual sense of completeness used in 
> describing logical inference systems, which refers only to the detection 
> of inconsistency."


I will add this note, at the end of the section, but with "This" expanded 
to be something like "The use of the word 'complete' in complete and 
terminating and complete OWL Lite consistency checker"


> 
> A better way, IMHO, <snipped>


I did not hear wg support for a better way.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 09:43:48 GMT

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