Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

Thanks; I have evidently not been reading very closely.

Hmm...

On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 09:10, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue
> Date: 17 Jun 2003 08:53:55 -0500
> 
> > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 08:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Well, I am arguing over what it means to be an OWL reasoner.  
> > 
> > It would be more clearly relevant to the work of this group
> > if you used terms from the specs. I don't recall
> > seeing "OWL reasoner" in the spec.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> In Test, Section 7.1.14 owl:equivalentProperty test 002
> 
> 	A reasoner can also deduce ...
> 
> In Test, Section 7.3.1
> 
> 	... within an OWL reasoner.
> 
> In Overview, Section 3.1
> 
> 	rdfs:subClassOf ... From this a reasoner can ...
> 
> 	rdfs:subPropertyOf ... From this a reasoner can ...
> 
> 	rdfs:domain ... From this a reasoner can ...
> 
> and about 25 other examples.
> 
> 
> In Reference, Section 4.4
> 
> 	From this an OWL reasoner should ...
> 
> In Reference, Section 8.2
> 
> 	... an OWL reasoner.
> 
> In Reference, Section 8.3
> 
> 	... complete reasoners for OWL Lite.
> 
> In S&AS, Section 1
> 
> 	Developers of reasoners and other semantic tools for OWL ...
> 
> 
> So not only is the concept of an OWL reasoner mentioned in the OWL specs,
> but the exact phrase ``OWL reasoner'' is mentioned.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
office: tel:+1-617-395-0241 (new VoIP phone Mar 2003)
mobile: tel:+1-816-616-6576
mobile: mailto:connolly+pager@w3.org

Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 10:43:55 UTC