- From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:21:53 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 14:55 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > so entailment with existential semantics is undecidable. > > I don't see this as a problem if we do not specify a conformance label > for entailment. We perhaps ought to have a disclaimer concerning > entailment and non-entailment tests to that effect. This suggests to me that you consider interoperability with respect to consistency tests more important than interoperability with respect to entailment tests. Is that in fact the case? If so, why? I understand that the 1.0 test document only defined semantic conformance with respect to consistency, but don't know what motivated that decision. Can you (or others with webont history) provide some pointers to background? -- Mike Smith Clark & Parsia
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 15:22:12 UTC