Sketch: reasoning conformance levels (was RE: Issue: Add hasValue to OWL Lite)

>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. In particular I'm not sure
> what is meant by "not expected to be able to say..."


Sorry there is an outstanding action against me to explain this part of the
idea ...

Sketch is as follows:


OWL offers the following conformance levels:

OWL DL
OWL Lite
[OWL full - not for reasoners]


Language tools without a reasoning capability MAY claim "OWL Lite
conformance" if they handle all OWL Lite constructs and, if appropriate,
provide support for name separation.
Language tools without a reasoning capability MAY claim "OWL DL conformance"
if they handle all OWL constructs and, if appropriate, provide support for
name separation.
Language tools without a reasoning capability MAY claim "OWL full
conformance" if they handle all OWL constructs and, if appropriate, provide
support for classes-as-instances (i.e. name separation support can be
switched off).

Reasoning components MAY claim "OWL DL reasoning" (aka "complete OWL DL
conformance") if they provide complete reasoning over OWL DL. i.e. An "OWL
DL reasoner" MUST find proofs for all OWL DL inferences. An OWL DL reasoner
MAY find proofs for any OWL full deduction.

Reasoning components MAY claim "OWL Lite reasoning" if they provide OWL Lite
conformance (i.e. no OWL Lite constructs makes the reasoner fall over, and
name separation is supported) and the reasoner will find proofs for at least
... [tbd]. An OWL Lite reasoner MAY find proofs for any OWL Full deduction.

Reasoning components MAY claim "most of OWL DL reasoning" if they provide at
least OWL Lite reasoning and ... [tbd] (e.g. pass 90% of the tests).

Documents MAY be described as OWL Lite if they do not use any constructs not
in OWL Lite, if they respect name separation, and do not require more than
OWL Lite reasoning for the intended use.

Documents MAY be described as OWL DL if they respect name separation, and
conform to the abstract syntax restrictions.
===

The idea, is separate from the semantic theory, which is addressed by both
the OWL DL and OWL Full semantics. We should set reasoners which wish to
claim OWL support specific goals that match the OWL Lite and OWL DL labels.
(I don't think its productive at this stage to talk about OWL full).

The OWL Lite label on a reasoner is an explicit admission that it is
Lite-weight. We should IMO choose the OWL Lite conformance level so that as
many reasoners as possible can conform. (i.e. we would try to exclude any
inference from being required that was difficult to implement using any of
the standard implementation approaches - OWL Lite as users can expect all
implementations to implement this).

I guess Ian doesn't like this much, its very grubby ...

I am expecting network inference to be the first to produce a complete OWL
DL reasoner, and part of this conformance stuff is to let that have a
distinctive label approved by this group, while having other lesser labels
for other reasoners that aren't as good.

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 09:35:35 UTC