Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:08:52 -0400

> At 11:53 PM -0400 6/16/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >If there is not an imports statement, then OWL does not license importing.
> >Any software that does so is not fully OWL compliant.  The negative
> >entailment test Imports-002 is a test of this situation.
> >
> >
> >peter
> 
> Peter - negative entailment test002 reads:
> 
> If a premise document uses a namespace but does not import the 
> document corresponding to the namespace, then the premises do not 
> necessarily entail anything that is entailed by the conjunction of 
> the two documents.

This is the strongest statement that can be made here because the first
document could by itself entail everything that is entailed by the second
document. 

> "The premises do not necessarily entail" which is not the same as 
> saying the premises necessarily do not entail.

Agreed, but this is not relevant to the issue here.

> Further, the definition of a non-entailment test is:
> 
> 3.3. Non-Entailment Tests These tests use two documents. One is named 
> premisesNNN.rdf, the other is named nonconclusionsNNN.rdf. The 
> nonconclusions are not entailed by the premises. Such entailment is 
> defined by the OWL semantics [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], 
> (see also OWL Full entailment). Exceptionally, test imports-002 
> includes a third document.
> 
> 
> i.e. not entailed by, which I believe is not the same as "the 
> negation is entailed by"

Correct, but this is not relevant to the issue here.

> I read this one carefully before I was willing to approve it, and 
> this statement is, indeed, consistent with the decision taken by the 
> group.

I disagree.  The decision made by the group defines the imports closure of
a document, and this imports closure includes only the transitive closure
of owl:imports.

> Our normative test document is therefore consistent with what I 
> described yesterday and I believe this still stands.

I do agree that the test document is consistent with the group's decision.

>   -JH

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies

Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 09:03:50 UTC