- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:55:59 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 1 Apr 2009, at 20:44, Michael Schneider wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg- >> request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks >> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:47 PM >> To: W3C OWL Working Group >> Subject: RDF-Based Semantics and n-ary dataranges >> >> We didn't manage to conclude this discussion. >> >> Summary of (my understanding of) the discussion so far: >> >> * we all believe that OWL 2 *should* only support unary datatypes/ >> ranges, and that ontology documents including n-ary *should* be non- >> conformant > > Hm, I thought that if C&P extends Pellet by support for certain n-ary > datatypes, then C&P should still be allowed to call Pellet a > conformant OWL > 2 DL reasoner? [snip] Isn't this always the problem with extensions? But here it's about documents. An OWL Document with n-ary predicates in it is not a conforming OWL Document (it is an extended owl document). Thus, a conforming OWL reasoner may reject it. An OWL reasoner which, in some mode, accepts such documents is no more non-conforming than if it accepts XML Schema documents and checks them for satisfiability or if it accepts HTML and renders it. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 19:52:17 UTC