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

Re: Full nonentailment and consistency tests

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:19:43 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200309151519.43057.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Jeremy:
>> We are not expecting complete Full reasoners, so we are not expecting 
anyone 
>> to prove the Full nonentailments or consistency tests.

Ian:
>This is not correct. It is perfectly possible to have an incomplete
>reasoner that can prove some or all of the Full nonentailments or
>consistency tests.

I wasn't trying to talk about what is possible, more about what we are 
expecting ...

I am intending to enumerate the (approved) Full Nonentailments and Consistency 
tests and suggest we demote them to extra credit, which does not prohibit 
implementations from proving them but merely marks it as not within *our* 
expectation.

Given the logical possibility of automatically constructing the proofs would 
you oppose such reclassification?

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 09:20:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT