- From: Ron Alford <ronwalf@umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:44:34 -0500
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: > > I am fairly mechanism-neutral about this - it could be a seperate OWL file > marked as 'required entailments' or some flag on axioms 'asserted, entailed' > or whatever. It would, however, make managing ontologies that rely heavily on > computational support much easier, especially if tools and reasoners groked > it, and if we could keep these required entailments close to the axioms they > refer to. > Have you looked at the OWL test suite[1]? I don't know how many tools use it (Pellet does), but the framework should be easy to use for your purposes. -Ron [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#testEntailment
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 19:44:48 UTC