Re: HP reactions to AS&S and OWL

> Personally I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed here; I am
> unclear whether my colleagues will find this line of argument
> compelling that we have got OWL sufficiently right.
> I think as representative I have a procedural problem, how best to ensure

> that HP has enough time to come to a thought out position, rather than a
> substantive problem; I think HP *may* have a substantive problem.
> The counterpoints to Jim's points here are:
> 1: Euler does not set out to be OWL Lite complete - if it turns out that
> is, that would be significant - this suggests a CR exit criteria which
> includes a completeness proof for Euler (or similar tool) with respect to

> OWL Lite.

Guido Naudts has some lemma's such as
  Closure Lemma
  Query Lemma
  First Triple Lemma
  Final Path Lemma
  Final Tripleset Lemma
  Looping Lemma
  Duplication Lemma
  Failure Lemma
  Solution Lemma I
  Solution Lemma II
  Solution Lemma III
  Completeness Lemma
and we believe that the basic resolution mechanism in Euler
(having unification with occurs check) should be complete
according to above lemmas and should also give a failure
for all loops (modulo processing time and implementation bugs)
anyhow completeness when the program terminates
so if we have an OWL Lite representation described with triples
and we do the appropriate prepare-before-resolution of some
additional triples the result of a query should be complete
when the program terminates
well, there is still a problem how to best cope with the
comprehension stuff i.e. currently we don't have that e.g.
  eg:x rdf:type owl:Property.
  eg:w rdf:type xsd:nonNegativeInteger.
  _:y owl:onProperty eg:x.
  _:y owl:minCardinality eg:w.


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 06:25:45 UTC