- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 20:29:09 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On December 9, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > 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. This is a common error. > 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. Why bother? It took us 9 months to formulate and agree to the current semantics - is it really likely we can do the same for another semantics between now and the proposed January last call? I for one would vote "can't live with" on any such a proposal simply on the grounds that it is totally unreasonable to expect the WG to give it adequate consideration in the time available. Ian > > 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 14:29:01 UTC