- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:13:18 +0100
- To: "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 29 Jul 2008, at 15:34, Jie Bao wrote: > > Ian > > I support the idea. There is still a point I'm not quite clear. When > we say "tool", does it mean an ontology editor or reasoner? I mean user application. Editors and reasoners and acquisition tools can do what makes sense. So, for example, I would expect Protege4 to flag these as problems and offer different ways of repairing or ignoring them. But a text mining application that generated OWL might choose to always resolve to UTC. > If it is > an editor, it may mean in the syntax of the language timezone is > always required and an editor will require a missing one. Or to add an interval explicitly. (I think intervals can be a sensible choice, just not a good default (at this time)). > If it is a > reasoner, it may mean that we still allow missing timezone to be > legal, but a reasoner will try to give it an interpretation (e.g., > adding a timezone or interpreting it as an interval depending on > user's intruction). Indeed, flags could control what the reasoner did. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 15:11:01 UTC