W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2002

Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:42:32 -0400
Message-ID: <001801c1f4fb$81907060$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "<pfps" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "jjc <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "www-webont-wg <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> Jonathan,
> > Is there a way that you can place a finite boundary on the number of
> times
> > this back and forth will occur, that is, is there a way, using
> comprehensive
> > entailments, that you will be absolutely certain that the entailments
> > actually comprehensive? For example, suppose we decide to go with this
> > approach, and then just after CR, for example, someone demonstrates yet
> > another example of a paradox for which no easy rule can be developed.
> What
> > then?
> well, I think it comes down to what you do with what you have derived
> e.g.
>   rdfs:Class a [ owl:complementOf [ a owl:Restriction; owl:onProperty
>       rdf:type; owl:maxCardinality "0"; owl:hasClass
>           rdfs:Class]]
> is obtained via some entailment rules, but I think there
> is no reason to ``assert such a graph i.e. I wouldn't
> consider entailment rules as comprehension rules

I want to be sure I understand you:

1) How does what you write above fit in with the proposals under discussion.
Does this support "comprehensive entailment"? Is this something different?

2) Were you answering the first or second question of mine above?

3) Is your answer "yes" "no" or "unknown"? You say "well, I think it comes
down to what you do with what you have derived", help me to understand this
more concretely -- i.e. so I can include your position in a summary.

Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 08:46:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:30 UTC