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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:13:52 +0100
Message-Id: <782FEE7C-3A5F-4BBA-BEA2-136E900EB70D@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 16 Jul 2008, at 18:01, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 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


"""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.

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 17:11:38 UTC

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