W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:56:51 +0100
Message-Id: <EAC676B4-94D6-4974-9DDA-9C9105822D0C@gmail.com>
Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Jul 11, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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.

Indeed, neither did I. I thought OWL-R was going to be a profile of  
OWL, along the same lines as the other profiles. Let's see what Zhe  
has to say.

Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 07:57:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC