W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Characterising OWL consistency checkers

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:24:45 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f0cba8eda357d92@[]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

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				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:43 UTC