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


> 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.



Received on Sunday, 13 July 2008 01:42:44 UTC