- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:59:55 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I am trying to understand what I need to change in the test document to reflect WG decisions vis-a-vis datatypes. I believe I should be working from Ian's text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Mar/0045.html I have some minor additions (see * * text) specifically: [[ OWL Consistency Checkers ======================== An OWL consistency checker takes a document as input, and outputs one word: Consistent, Inconsistent, or Unknown. An OWL document is Consistent iff there exists some MODEL of the document that is consistent with the constraints specified by the relevant MODEL THEORY (*see ASS <link>OWL Lite and OWL DL</link>, <link>OWL Full</link>). An OWL consistency checker MUST return "Consistent" only when the input document is consistent and "Inconsistent" only when the input document is not consistent (this property is usually called SOUNDNESS). An OWL consistency checker is COMPLETE, **with respect to its supported datatypes**, if, given sufficient (but finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory), it will always return either Consistent or Inconsistent **(for an input document that does not use any unsupported datatypes)**; otherwise it is INCOMPLETE. It has been shown that for OWL Lite and DL it is possible to construct a complete consistency checker (the languages are DECIDABLE), and that for OWL full it is not possible to construct a complete consistency checker (the language is UNDECIDABLE). An OWL consistency checker SHOULD minimally support at least the following XMLS datatypes: integer, string. ]] is that enough? is there a link for the word "support" in the last paragraph to S&AS? I would continue with the exact characterisation of the five consistency checkers agreed at the January f2f (text largely unchanged from current WD). Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 08:59:26 UTC