- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:03:02 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Jan 13, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [snip] > Hmm, but this is not complete with respect to entailment in the RDF > semantics, as far as I can tell. [snip] It is, in fact, not complete. I regard that fact as a feature, not a bug. It is more important to be backward compatible with universal practice, expectation, etc. than with a (IMHO) buggy (rather, mal-designed) prior spec. One could always have complete existential semantics (such that a bnode is equivalent to a someValuesFrom) in the OWL Full semantics. OWL 1.1 DL will just be incomplete wrt to that semantics, but that's nothing new. Given the choice between admitting more OWL Full graphs as OWL DL, and making sure that the graphs that we do admit are semantically identical under OWL DL and OWL Full, I pick the former. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2008 14:03:22 UTC