W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > June 2008

RE: intendedProfile

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:33:30 +0100
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c8d780$75875bd0$7212a8c0@wolf>


The language is designed such that OWL Full and OWL DL semantics largely coincide for syntactically OWL DL ontologies. Authors
intending their ontologies to be interpreted with OWL Full semantics can easily add content that is syntactically OWL Full.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> Sent: 24 June 2008 20:42
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: OWL Working Group WG
> Subject: owl:intendedProfile
> (This is a peripherally related to ISSUE-131, and is a response to its
> opening, but is really about ISSUE-111.)
> > It might be beneficial to try and unify OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full into a
> > single profile. The main benefit would be that we would not need
> > owl:intendedProfile: the profile an ontology is in would be defined by
> > the syntactic structure of the axioms in the ontology.
> Even for OWL-Full?
> To be clear: in OWL 1, test cases are parameterized by the intended
> profile.  The entailments of an OWL document are not defined unless you
> have that parameter in hand.  I think we're agreed that this is bad.
> You're saying that aside from the split between OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full,
> OWL 2 doesn't have this split?  Whether one RDF Graph owl2-entails
> another or is owl2-consistent is fully defined for every RDF Graph?
>        -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 11:35:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:48 UTC