- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:24:46 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi, > > > 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. > > -Alan > For the record, I am happy with the way OWL-R is written. Like I said in the conference call, I haven't heard any complaints about it myself. Frankly, the rule set in OWL R Full is what I care the most. I will be happy if Boris's proposal is accepted, as long as we clearly point out that the rules can be applied to any RDF graphs. The OWL-R unification idea can reduce a bit confusion. I don't consider it a must-have though. In short, I don't have strong opinions either way. Thanks, Zhe
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2008 01:42:44 UTC