- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:15:32 +0000
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
I think this comment looks crucial ... > This is *NOT* simply incompleteness w.r.t. OWL DL/full semantics, > because a Lite reasoner would be entitled to answer NO to a question > about entailment when the correct DL/full answer is YES. I was concentrating on the YES answers. I will try and make a modification to the proposal that clarifies what should or should not be said about entailments that are OWL Full entailments but not OWL Lite entailments. The intent is that they are ones that include class membership or subclass relationships on the RHS. Perhaps a different characterization should be that OWL Lite entailment could be a set of pairs of documents A owl-lite-entails B where A is an arbitrary owl lite document, and B uses no RDF, RDFS or OWL vocabulary. i.e. owl-lite-entailment does not include any classification tasks. Since this is a syntactically charcaterized subset the respone of an OWL Lite reasoner to does X entail Y is either YES, NO, "X is not syntactically OWL Lite" or "Y involves special vocabulary". I'll think some more ... Jeremy
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 13:15:46 UTC