W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

[TF-ENT] URIs for entailment regimes in service descriptions

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:57:06 +0000
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0910270757i763afc8u6987091b449bd512@mail.gmail.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all,
in the telecon we shortly discussed whether we would need two URIs for
the two OWL Semantics (RDF-Based and Direct (<- Model Theoretic,
Description Logics)) or URIs for each OWL Profile.
For RDF-Based seantics, we have two profiles:
OWL Full and OWL RL
OWL Full handles all legal RDF graphs and so does an OWL RL system.
For OWL RL, if the input belongs to a certain fragment (the OWL RL
fragment), then the system is guaranteed to sound and complete,
otherwise the system might be incomplete.

For Direct semantics we have three profiles:
Any OWL DL reasoner can handle all three (but not arbitrary OWL Full).
OWL EL reasoners can also handle OWL QL, and OWL QL reasoners do only
Inputs outside of the supported fragment will be rejected, i.e., an
OWL QL system works only on inpus that fall into the OWL QL fragment.
OWL EL systems will accept inputs that fall into the EL (and thus also
into the QL) fragment, etc

The problem with using just one URI per semantics is that OWL QL and
EL systems will possibly reject many input ontologies that are OWL DL
because they are outside of their fragment. If we have just one URL,
then I cannot know what the system will accept. It is trial and error.
For RDF-Based semantics it seems to be less of an issue, but for
Direct Semantics it would make more sense IMO to have different URIs
and then it would be a bit wired to have only one for RDF-Based
semantics, but three for Direct Semantics.


Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 14:57:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC