- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:23:12 +0100
- To: "Ian Horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
I wrote: > 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). I heard: 90% is a very bad idea. I didn't hear alternatives for the [tbd] ... Suggestions please. Ian: >What now seems to be suggested is that the language is more or less >the same as OWL DL, and that ease of implementation is instead due to >different requirements w.r.t. implementation. Why bother with OWL Lite >at all in this case? The proposal with the OWL Lite conformance is that it respects the syntactic subset issues, *and* OWL Lite reasoners may be less powerful than OWL DL reasoners, even over that syntactic subset. However, I take it for granted that we would want an OWL DL reasoner to automatically be an OWL Lite reasoner, so the underlying semantics is the same. I realize this is coming from a different direction than a theoretical study of the complexity problems of different constructs for complete reasoners. So proposal is OWL Lite = OWL DL - some of the hard-to-implement-complete-reasoning-for-cosntructs *and* OWL Lite reasoners may be incomplete in some well defined way over that subset. This leaves OWL DL as a distinguished conformance point where reasoning is complete. We may want to have a conformance description for complete OWL Lite reasoners, but, on your analysis it doesn't seem we would have many takers other than those who are really shooting at OWL DL reasoning. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 06:23:42 UTC