- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:10:52 +0000
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> We agreed at the Manchester f2f that this should go in the test doc: > > RESOLVED: The test document should specify the conformance clauses for > OWL Lite, DL, and FULL documents > > and I note that the Test doc does indeed contain a section on OWL > reasoners. This would be the obvious place to add a statement about > support for datatypes. Yes I am happy to include such modifications, I suggest we need a brief telecon resolution to do so. > > One *SERIOUS PROBLEM* is that the existing statement is > incorrect/inadequate. It should say that a reasoner is unsound if it > *either* shows an entailment in a non-entailment test *or* shows a > non-entailment in an entailment test (and similarly for consistency). > A incomplete reasoner is one that may return a "don't know" answer. > Fine, I will review the wording and rephrase - but not right now. DanC has also asked for wording changes to expand on the phrase "logically complete". Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:11:04 UTC