W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: PROPOSAL to *close* (not postpone) ISSUE-83

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:34:37 -0500
Message-Id: <72E4A28B-187E-42C8-80B2-DE83B0AE4B3D@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Followup to my previous note:
<alanr> ACTION: Alan and Ian to define wording for resolution of  
issue 83 and similar

 From http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.12.12/Minutes


On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Issue-83 asks for property chains on both sides of subproperty axioms.
> As pointed out by Uli Sattler
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0600.html
> this makes OWL 1.1 undecidable.
> Contrary to what Ian Horrocks says
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0012.html
> this feature would automatically be in an OWL
> Full version because there would have to be in OWL Full a semantic
> treatment of property chains and then there would be no way of  
> excluding
> them from both ends of a rdfs:subPropertyOf axiom.
> I therefore propose that we CLOSE ISSUE-83 without doing anything  
> on the
> twin grounds that it both compromises decidability in OWL 1.1 and  
> is not
> handled by tools, and that there is nothing special that needs to be
> done in OWL Full.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> PS:  If the "undecidability" was not present above then it would be
>      reasonable to POSTPONE the issue.  However, undecidability
>      conflicts with the goals of OWL DL (and OWL 1.1) and thus I
>      strongly believe that CLOSURE is much more appropriate.
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 18:34:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC