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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:29:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080716.132959.16106371.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:01:15 +0200

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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

In what way is this at all "derogatory"?  

In any case, I'm fine with *not* including it.

> is certainly not what
> vendors would put as part of their product announcement 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. 
> 
> Ivan
> 
> > as being obvious and not useful in our specification.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 17:30:37 UTC

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