W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

RE: Plea to re-open issue-113 [WAS: Disposition of some recently raised issues]

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:57:37 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BDBDA@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:29 AM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: Alan Ruttenberg; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Plea to re-open issue-113 [WAS: Disposition of some
>recently raised issues]
>On 23 Apr 2008, at 09:18, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> So I plea the chairs to re-open this issue.
>> My proposal would then be to
>>   close ISSUE-113 as REJECTED
>> optionally with a note in the documents that
>>   "OWL-x conform" reasoners *MUST NOT* infer non-entailments of OWL-x.
>I thought, in essence, this was the F2F resolution.

Then I have heavy difficulties to understand this resolution:

    DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments. 
    OWL-R does not have certain OWL Full entailments. 
    Vendors can implement other/related languages if they want.

Hm, do you refer to the first two sentences? I interpret them more to be
contextual information. But if you say that

   "DL does not have certain OWL Full entailments."

was intended to mean

   "DL /reasoners/ /must/ not have certain OWL Full entailments 
   /which are non-entailments of DL/ /or any other non-entailments of DL/."

then I will agree with you, and will only blame those who invented this
blurry formulation. :) In this case, of course, the third sentence (which I
thought was the actual resolution) is completely redundant.

However, looking again in the minutes doesn't convince me that the
resolution was really meant this way. The direction of discussion there
seems to me rather the other way around. But I won't have problems with
being proven wrong on this point, again.
>BTW, that's not new information. It was definitely discussed multiple

Can you please show me in the minutes where this point was discussed? I
neither remember, nor do I find it in the minutes.



Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 08:58:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC