- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:45:09 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 19 Aug 2008, at 17:25, Jim Hendler wrote:
> Ian, I apologize, I didn't mean to imply anything was wrong
>
> I think by now you have seen my email with two possible ways
> forward -a specific "tag" or,my preference, a decision not to
> include any such wording.
>
> Bijan, I don't agree it is just editorial since this whole
> discussion came up in response to an issue and we need to resolve
> to close that issue as a wg.
Oh. I thought there were two different things:
RESOLVED: Close with no change to the language (i.e., no additional
mechanism).
Editorial: Add some advice about how to make your ontologies OWL Full
if they are syntactically OWL DL without distorting the modeling.
It seems like you agree with this resolution but would prefer not to
have the advice. I think the advice is harmless at worst.
I see Ian's phrasing puts the two together in his original email, but
I didn't think it was meant to conceptually conflate them.
I imagine some text like the following:
"For the most part, when an OWL Ontology is syntactically in OWL DL,
you get the same entailments under the OWL Full or OWL DL semantics,
as long as the entailments themselves are syntactically in OWL DL.
There are a few corner cases where this is not the case, for example,
owl:Thing subClassOf oneOf{a} entails owl:Thing subClassOf
owl:Nothing in OWL Full but not in OWL DL. One can force syntactic
OWL Fullness on such ontologies by adding a syntactically OWL Full
statement that is entailed by the empty ontology (thus doesn't
otherwise change the modeling), for example, sameAs sameAs sameAs."
I'd be happy to put something like this in the primer. I need to
explain the alignment anyway.
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 16:42:42 UTC