- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:31:31 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Jul 10, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Boris Motik wrote: > >> "The rules from Section 4.3 can be applied to arbitrary RDF >> graphs, in which case the produced consequences are sound but not >> necessarily complete." > > One thing to consider with this last bit, is that there is > issue-117 and discussion at the F2F had leaned towards saying that > non-entailments in OWL-R would not be sanctioned. Thus "complete" > would need to be qualified - the entailments might be complete in > the sense that no others are sanctions, but incomplete with respect > to a more expressive language. Just for the record, at the time, I understood that discussion *not* to be about additional RDF graphs, but to be about some entailments wrt the syntactic fragment...that is, as strictly analogous to the situation with, e.g., the treatment of finite owl:Things in DL vs. OWL Full, *NOT* as about arbitrary other graphs. Perhaps I was the only one, but I certainly would have been, er, more "vigorous" in the discussion in my inimitable way if I had understood it to be going along these lines. I don't see the problem with saying that a rule engine with the OWL-R rules is a sound but incomplete OWL Full engine (just as an OWL DL reasoner is a sound but incomplete (we think) OWL Full engine)) and a sound and complete OWL-R engine. That seems to cover the situation exactly, using standard lingo, and understandably. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 07:32:10 UTC