- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:52:05 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: schneid@fzi.de, public-owl-dev@w3.org
>> and then OWL-Full semantics would be totaly >> broken! Is it this what you (Pat) mean by "whether the OWL semantic >> conditions are internally consistent..."? > > Yes, again. > See http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-146.html from the abstract: [[ We also sought a stronger result [...] but it proved impossible to achieve this within our time constraints ]] and from the text [[ Because of economic constraints we have made little progress towards a result of this nature, ]] while the result we were after was stronger than OWL Full being consistent, we felt the obstacles were largely ones to do with any proof of the weaker consistency result. The 'economic constraints' meant we had spent the budget allocated for proving the result, and failed to either prove or disprove it. While I remain emotionally committed to the consistency of OWL Full, (and hope to get further budget for more explorations!) this experience makes me intellectually more prepared to acknowledge the sceptical position (which Peter often represents). Jeremy PS There's some nice positive results in the report too - but the negative result is probably the most significant.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 10:52:38 UTC