- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:57:31 +0100
- To: "Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston)" <ora.lassila@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On October 18, Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston) writes: > > [second attempt, first one disappeared yesterday...] > > Frank van Harmelen wrote: > > Reasoners for OWL/RDF-style will be much harder to implement than reasoners > > for OWL/FOL-style (complete reasoners would be impossible to implement if > > OWL/RDF-style turns out to be an undecidable language, as it might well be) > > Barring the possibility that RDF-style turns out to be undecidable, does > anyone have any concrete (practical) estimates of what "much harder to > implement" really means? I am looking for a *compelling* pragmatic argument > against the classes-as-instances feature. To the best of my knowledge, there is no known direct algorithm for such a language (i.e., OWL lite + "RDF-style"). The best you can do is axiomatise and use an FOL prover. Reasoning in OWL lite would therefore be much the same as reasoning in large OWL - and certainly much harder than reasoning in fast OWL. There seems to be little justification for the existence of OWL lite under these circumstances. Ian
Received on Sunday, 20 October 2002 14:57:42 UTC