RE: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP

Hello,

In his message (Re: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP) of 12/06/2003,
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>I am less than convinced by text that is not more in-your-face.
>(this is not really meant as a response to Mike, more to Jim)
>  > [NEW:
>>    Reasoners for OWL
>>    Lite will have desirable computational properties.  Reasoners for
>>    OWL DL, while dealing with a decidable sublanguage, will be subject to
>>    higher worst-case complexity.
>  > ]
>this text still suggests that what we once called complete DL consistency
>checkers will exist. Since we have no evidence for this, and in fact we have
>evidence to the contrary, that should be made explicit: e.g.
>
>[
>    Reasoners for OWL
>    Lite will have desirable computational properties.
>Theoretically,  complete reasoners for
>OWL DL could be built, since it is a decidable sublanguage;
>however the worst-case complexity would probably be unacceptable.
>
>]

I prefer the initial phrasing which is more precise (no probably and 
no undefined terms like unacceptable). Some people are perfectly 
happy with proovers for "untractable" theory.

It is possible to not assume the existence of reasoners in the 
initial formulation by saying:
"OWL DL, while being a decidable sublanguage [of OWL Full], is 
subject to higher worst-case complexity." (or "consequence-checking 
in OWL DL" for being more precise).

-- 
  Jérôme Euzenat                  __
                                  /      /\
  INRIA Rhône-Alpes,            _/  _   _   _ _    _
                               /_) | ` / ) | \ \  /_)
  655, avenue de l'Europe,    (___/___(_/_/  / /_(_________________
  Montbonnot St Martin,       /        http://www.inrialpes.fr/exmo
  38334 Saint-Ismier cedex,  /          Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr
  France____________________/                Jerome.Euzenat@free.fr

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 12:23:48 UTC