- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:18:38 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 14 Dec 2006, at 11:11, Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] > Ok, now I'm getting into the second bit :) I don't think this is > true, and not a sensible wish anyway. I [snip] When I wrote that, I didn't intend to sound snarky, but rereading, I see that it sounds that way. I just meant that I thought we all wanted there to be more entailments with an OWL Full reasoner, so I'm confused as to the requirement that, well, there not be any. OWL Full has "more" semantics, so an OWL Full reasoners *should* find more entailments. But perhaps you meant something else? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 11:29:37 UTC