- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:48:51 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On May 14, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > In > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0181.html > > DanC: > > On closer examination of the comment, it seems > > to be more about what goes in OWL DL than > > what goes in OWL Lite. > > And in ... > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0174.html > DanC: > >Please help me find the relevant decisions > >and/or find evidence that those implementations > >pass some relevant tests and/or add an > >issue to the issues list. > > In January, we agreed a definition of a "complete OWL DL consistency checker", > if we had evidence that such a thing existed, and/or that more than one would > exist in the future (and the WG was satisfied that they would be practically > usable, rather than essentially theoretical exercises) then we could respond > with a message that indicated that, and that we thought that that was > sufficient to justify the DL level. We could build an reasoner based on algorithms for C2, but as I pointed out in earlier email, performance would probably be poor for larger problems. Many people are working on the problem of developing more practical algorithms for logics with oneOf - and the existence of OWL DL would no doubt provide a spur to such efforts. It is, however, widely recognised to be a very hard problem, and no guarantees can be made about the outcome/timescale. Ian > > If we don't have such evidence then I agree with > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0181.html > > DanC: > > Mr. Merry's point, "We're concerned that OWL users should have their > > expectations met when they use OWL compliant systems." seems well > > made, no? > > (A danger is that if OWL DL is tainted then the whole OWL brand is tainted). > > Jeremy > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 16:15:22 UTC