- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:25:04 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > I *always* use those entailement rules to explain, I think OWL gets too complicated to express only by means of rules. I am trying to make a formal point, that I am sure somewhat else could make better. Essential rules work for RDF, RDFS, and even pD* because if you apply all the rules until they can't apply anymore (and take appropriate steps with certain problems) you can end up with a workable piece of code (for example Jena rules). But this approach fails if taken to the limit. I guess it would be possible to have a set of rules that was not practical in that way (that the closure is badly infinite, i.e. infinite in ways which you can't work around), which did articulate the semantics of OWL .... Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 15:25:35 UTC