- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:13:52 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 16 Jul 2008, at 18:01, Ivan Herman wrote: > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [snip] >> 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. > > I have already objected to this type of description elsewhere > > HTTP://www.w3.org/mid/487A187C.4070509@w3.org > > this type of slightly derogatory description How is it derogatory? It's an accurate description and I think it's a more useful conceptualization for users. Certainly better than "semantic subset" which, frankly, I often don't understand :) > is certainly not what vendors would put as part of their product > announcement http://jena.sourceforge.net/inference/#overview """RDFS rule reasoner Implements a configurable subset of the RDFS entailments. OWL, OWL Mini, OWL Micro Reasoners A set of useful but incomplete implementation of the OWL/Lite subset of the OWL/Full language. DAML micro reasoner""" > let alone the fact that they would not even have a clear name and > standard to refer to. I regard that as a major problem. I'm confused. It seems like there is. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 17:11:38 UTC