- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:47:47 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At 15:30 +0000 3/28/03, Ian Horrocks wrote: >On March 27, Jeremy Carroll writes: >> >> >> Ian >> >> I have largely gone with your wording - making one editorial change, and >> linking to the definition of datatype theory rather than the section >> containing the definition. In-line text is below. >> >> There is also one other point that came up in discussion with Jos which is >> what change is needed in >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Mar/att-0083/M#runningCo >> nsistencyChecker >> >> section 5.2 >> >> The current text with one addition **ed is: >> [[ >> An OWL Lite consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL Lite >> consistency test, must output Consistent or Unknown. >> >> An OWL DL consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL DL or >> OWL Lite consistency test, must output Consistent or Unknown. >> >> An OWL Full consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL >> Full, OWL DL or OWL Lite consistency test, must output Consistent or >> Unknown. >> >> The corresponding inconsistency tests must result in output of Inconsistent >> or Unknown **, as long as the datatypes required >> by the test are supported by the >> datatype theory of the consistency checker**. >> >> A complete OWL Lite consistency checker or a complete OWL DL consistency >> checker should not return Unknown on the relevant consistency or >> inconsistency tests. >> ]] >> >> Is that addition sufficient? Or do I need it also for the consistency tests. > >This is correct. Lack of support for a datatype will always result in >more models, so if an ontology is consistent w.r.t. a datatype theory >supporting all the relevant datatypes, then it is consistent w.r.t. a >datatype theory supporting fewer datatypes. > >BTW, we didn't specify anything about what a datatype theory ought to >say (e.g., it could map all integers to the same domain element). Do >we want/need to say that datatype theories must be consistent with >XMLSchema, or some such? Good point - we certainly imply that numerous places in our other documents, adding something to this effect would be useful -- maybe we should say SHOULD be consistent with to allow a little leeway (that would address MIke's concern about bignums, for example) >Ian -- 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) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 09:48:10 UTC