- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 17:44:41 -0600
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: 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. I have to agree with Ian here. If we expect to go to last call by January, we really cannot start taking air hammers to the foundations at this stage. If y'all had wanted to have a strictly frame-based OWLLite with a frame-based semantics, there was plenty of time to have said that months ago. The semantics subgroup was specifically charged at the Bristol F2F to *not* do this, as I recall, but to attempt to keep the OWL/RDF/OWL-Lite semantics all in alignment. Doing this took blood and toil, as some of us will probably never forget. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 18:45:11 UTC