- From: Damian Steer <damian.steer@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:26:44 +0000
- To: denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Frank Clar <Frank_Clar@web.de>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11 Dec 2004, at 17:25, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > > Hi, > just some quick notes. Disclaimer: that's the answers as I understand > it right now, I may be wrong. And it's weekend, so my brain is running > on half voltage on this, and I've just seen the special edition of > LOTR:RotK, so be careful with the answers ;) Ditto :-) >> Is it right that only OWL full and RDF/s are not decidable, because >> they >> do not seperate between concepts and instances? > > OWL Full and RDFS are not decidable, and yes, this is a reason. > RDF itself is just a data model, and thus the question does not apply. This is second hand (via Jeremy Carroll), but I understand Herman ter Horst presented a paper [1] showing that RDF and RDFS are decidable, and further that they are decidable in polynomial time (which is cheaper than DLs). I believe this also holds for RDFS + some bits of OWL (fp, ifp, inv, sameAs ? i.e. not the restrictions), but with intensional semantics. As for OWL Full I don't know of any papers showing it isn't decidable. Yet. I'll let more knowledgeable people dive in at this point. Damian [1] <http://annotation.semanticweb.org/iswc2004/annotated_docs/ ExtendingTheRDFSEntailmentLemma.htm> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBu1gLAyLCB+mTtykRAiI0AJ9uZonkJ1LjxvdtTrYbv6R1ylf8cwCfS09G lomBuIj13aWRKpdfXYYPBEY= =o8w3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 11 December 2004 20:27:28 UTC