Re: Possibly wrong use of RL-theorem in the Conformance spec

The idea is to identify circumstances under which the RL rules are  
complete, i.e., where they can be correctly used to determine non- 
entailment. Is it not the case that a direct semantics non-entailment  
where the two ontologies satisfy the conditions in Theorem PR1 is  
also an RDF-based semantics non-entailment?

Ian


On 3 Jul 2009, at 20:29, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi!
>
> In Section 2.3.1 of the Conformance spec, appended to the  
> definition of an "OWL 2 RL entailment checker", there is the  
> following note:
>
> [[
> Note that it follows from Theorem PR1 of Profiles [OWL 2 Profiles]
> that it is always safe for an OWL 2 RL entailment checker
> using the RDF-Based Semantics
> to return False if:
> ... several conditions ...
> ]]
>
> But the actual theorem PR1 does only make a assertion about the  
> relationship between the RL ruleset and the *Direct Semantics*.  
> Nothing is said about the RDF-Based Semantics by that theorem.
>
> So I believe that in the above note, the term "RDF-Based Semantics"  
> has to be replaced by the term "Direct Semantics".
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> ====================================================================== 
> =
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael  
> Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> ====================================================================== 
> =
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 05:50:28 UTC