- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 May 2003 16:19:50 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 16:10, Dan Connolly wrote: > Nifty! > > Criticism to follow separately ;-) a nit, i.e. evidence that I've actually looked at it: "An OWL consistency checker is complete, with respect to datatypes supported by its datatype theory [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if, given sufficient (but finite) resources (CPU cycles and memory) and the absence of network errors, it will always return either Consistent or Inconsistent; otherwise it is complete." -- 4.2.2. Consistency Checker http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003May/att-0008/L#consistencyChecker gee... that makes it pretty easy to build complete consistency checkers ;-) I think you meant: ... otherwise it is incomplete -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 17:23:09 UTC