I certainly meant informational in my original mail (just as the RDFS rules are not normative either). In some cases, like for OWLPrime, these could also become normative (in some way or other...) Ivan Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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 >> >> > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 08:53:03 UTC