- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 09:52:52 +0100
- To: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- CC: "'RDF Rules'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
Geoff Chappell wrote: > > I agree that's probably a better goal (at least initially). So what's > the best way to express the scope of the effort - an axiomatization of > rdf(s) and owl in LP-style rules? Perhaps "partial axiomatization" would be closer, since pure LP rules can't completely capture even OWL-lite. It'd be nice to turn it round the other way, and treat it as a definition (and axiomatization) of that subset of OWL entailments that are within scope of rules-style reasoners. One of the dangers with OWL is that we'll end up with lots of implementations which offer incomplete support for different subsets of OWL-full leading to interoperability problems. A community agreed subset which is practically implementable using modest technology would be great. The problem here is that I'm talking as a "scruff" - you can't really subset semantics this way. > Tests that help to define the boundaries of the owl subset achievable > via an axiomatization would be particularly useful. Exactly. Dave
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 03:54:19 UTC