- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:05:31 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Peter, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. > > This is pretty obvious with the way the OWL R FULL section is written. It is no longer that obvious with the proposed changes. Not to me at least :) Cheers, Zhe > peter > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 16:08:21 UTC