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

Hi Peter,

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I agree with the proposal made by Boris in
> 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 :)



> peter

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 16:08:21 UTC