Re: Characterising OWL consistency checkers

At 18:02 +0000 3/7/03, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>On March 7, Jim Hendler writes:


>Because ALL datatypes/values are interpreted, an OWL reasoner MUST
>"deal with" all datatypes. This isn't a big overhead because
>unsupported datatypes can be treated in a uniform and very lightweight
>manner. If a reasoner claims to support a given datatype, AND it
>claims to be complete, then it has to do more work w.r.t. that
>datatype (the MT formalises just what it has to do).

yes, but remember that many of our readers won't know this, and thus 
I just want to make sure someone says it in novice-understandable 
form in our document.  I did very much like what you wrote, wasn't 
being critical

>>    but we need some decision on this
>The decision as to which datatypes (if any) MUST be supported by all
>OWL reasoners is obviously one that has to be made by the working
>group. My suggestion is that we make this a fairly short (possibly
>zero length) list.

actually, I think your ACTION item was to take a first stab at making 
a suggestion.  If you want to suggest zero length, that woudl address 
your action.  I probably prefer string and integer, but could live 
with none.

Guus, can you make sure this goes on WG agenda to get resolved on 13th?

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 19:10:36 UTC