Re: Consistency, decidability, etc (was Re: SEM: 5.1 literal/data values was RE: ADMIN: Minutes of telecon 11th July 2002)

At 4:51 PM +0100 7/19/02, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>On July 18, Jim Hendler writes:


>My stance all along is that we should design OWL so that it has
>certain desirable computational properties, in particular that it is
>POSSIBLE to implement sound and complete (and terminating)
>reasoners. If we don't care about the computational properties of the
>language, then it is hard to see why we are bothering to restrict
>ourselves to such a relatively clumsy and inexpressive language - why
>not go straight to full FOL (I can hear Pat saying "amen to that"), or
>something even more expressive?


Ian - I owe you an apology - I was frustrated over some of the things 
in our WG that just seemed to be going round and round, and I 
unloaded on you VERY unfairly.  You have been one of the more 
involved people in the WG, you have consistently provided important 
information, you have a principled approach to your arguments, and 
you've shown a willingness to "live with" some things that you don't 
particularly like.  If we all would work as hard on this as you do, 
and would be as careful in our work, then the WG would be even more 
productive than it is.
  I apologize to you for my remarks, and to the whole WG for wasting their time
  Jim H

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 13:46:43 UTC