- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
- 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