- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 25 Jun 2003 09:47:42 -0500
- To: "Merry, Martin" <Martin_Merry@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 05:16, Merry, Martin wrote: [...] > > My interpretation of this is that you do not expect a complete consistency > checker for OWL DL to exist; I expect them to exist. Its running time is less predictable for problems involving certain constructs (oneOf and inverse or some such) but it still finds an answer, eventually. I gather it falls back to a first-order reasoner in these cases. [...] > If it is the case that there are complete implementations of OWL DL that > have acceptable performance and are available on terms compatible with the > W3C patent policy Er.. the W3C patent policy doesn't have any terms that relate to the availability of software. Only terms that relate to patent licenses. > then I would be very pleased to hear it, and you can > safely ignore any of these comments. However, given your comments earlier I > assume that the intended status of OWL DL is > > * it is decidable > * there are implementations of a number of different proper subsets. I expect complete implementations of OWL DL (for an empty datatype theory). > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Jun/0023.html > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 10:47:14 UTC