- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 04:37:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: herman.ter.horst@philips.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: Test document: a few comments (one comment about AS & S) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:06:35 +0000 > > I take the relevant text to be: > > [[ > <p> > The top-level technical notion in this semantics for OWL is then > whether an interpretation satisfies an OWL ontology, and the derived > notion of entailment. > An Abstract OWL interpretation, I, <em>satisfies</em> an OWL ontology, > O, iff I satisfies each axiom and fact in the imports closure of O. > An Abstract OWL ontology is <em>consistent</em> if there is some > interpretation that satisfies it. > An Abstract OWL ontology <em>entails</em> an OWL axiom or fact if each > interpretation that satisfies the ontology also satisfies the axiom or > fact. > An Abstract OWL ontology <em>entails</em> another Abstract OWL ontology if each > interpretation that satisfies the first ontology also satisfies the > second ontology. > Note that there is no need to create the imports closure of an > ontology - any method that correctly determines the entailment relation is > allowed. > </p> Yes. > > ]] > > Could you add an anchor on consistent and entails please. > Also can I have the similar anchors in the OWL Full semantics. > > Jeremy The following now exist: direct.html#direct_consistent direct.html#direct_entails rdfs.html#rdfs_consistent_DL rdfs.html#rdfs_entails_DL rdfs.html#rdfs_consistent_Full rdfs.html#rdfs_entails_Full peter
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 04:38:04 UTC