- From: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:34:48 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 19:45, Ian Horrocks<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > It isn't obvious to me why this wouldn't be an entailment under the > RDF-Based semantics -- at least not at this time of night. Can you explain? I was basing this on the conclusion we drew when discussing the test case http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-Class-005 in January [1] - that the definition of entailment in the OWL 1 Full semantics and the OWL 2 RDF Based Semantics does not permit the entailed ontology to use vocabulary not present in the premise ontology. This led to the description in the Direct Semantics version of the test http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-Class-005-direct At present, after digging some I cannot support this position with text from the specifications. It may be that we assumed it to hold because the alternative was that the WebOnt group had incorrectly labeled and approved these test cases. I'm now leaning toward the latter view. Can someone more familiar with the OWL 1 Full and OWL 2 RDF-Based semantics (e.g., Peter or Michael) refer to the text and come back with a conclusive answer for the RDF-Based semantics versions of these cases? Thanks, -- Mike Smith Clark & Parsia [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0031.html
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 13:35:27 UTC