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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080716.112819.66702179.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

I agree with the proposal made by Boris in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0250.html 
This makes OWL-R a syntactic language, i.e., a true profile.  It
simplifies the situation with profiles considerably and usefully.

The benefit of OWL-R is that a certain kind of reasoning can be
accurately performed in OWL-R written as RDF by using the set of rules
provided as a convenience.  In my opinion, no more need be said.  Anyone
can decide to implement OWL-R reasoning using this (non-normative) rule
set, but there could be other ways to implement OWL-R reasoning (for
example, by using a DL reasoner or even a reasoner for higher-order
logic).  What counts is the correctness of the implementation.  

Implementors are also free to use this rule set for other purposes, such
as on RDF graphs that do not fit within the OWL-R profile, just
as they would be free to use a higher-order reasoner.   Any
modifications to the implementation technique required for these
additional purposes are beyond the scope of our specification.  In fact,
I would go so far as to not include Boris's proposed addition to Section
4.4
	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.
as being obvious and not useful in our specification.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 15:29:21 UTC

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