- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:52 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, 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>
What I think I'm hearing is a proposal for an *informative* section in the documents giving a (possibly incomplete) definition of OWL, in the interest of making it more understandable. -Alan On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > 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 Monday, 18 February 2008 08:44:25 UTC