Re: S&AS: Treatment of imports in RDF-Compatible Semantics

I am still thinking about Pat's unhappiness about the definition of 
*Consistent* in the Test Cases, and am thinking of coming back with text 
that relates more directly to this defn. I had some possible text in my 
head that did use a reference to imports closed.

Sorry, I haven't yet review Jeff's proposed text below and don't intent to 
do so today.

Jeremy

Jeff Heflin wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> I was composing a response to Dave Becket on the imports issue, when I
> noticed a problem with imports in the RDF-Compatible Semantics. In
> section 5.3, you define the term "imports closed" but then never use it.
> 
> I believe you need to change the last definition in the section from:
> 
> "Definitions: Let K and Q be collections of RDF graphs. Then K OWL Full
> entails Q whenever every OWL Full interpretation (of any vocabulary V
> that includes the RDF and RDFS vocabularies and the OWL vocabulary that
> satisfies all the RDF graphs in K also satisfies all the RDF graphs in
> Q. K is OWL     Full consistent if there is some OWL Full interpretation
> that satisfies all the RDF graphs in K."
> 
> to something like:
> 
> "Definitions: Let K and Q be collections of RDF graphs. Then K OWL Full
> entails Q whenever every OWL Full interpretation (of any vocabulary V
> that includes the RDF and RDFS vocabularies and the OWL vocabulary) that
> satisfies all the RDF graphs in K', the imports closure of K, also
> satisfies all the RDF graphs in Q. K is OWL Full consistent if there is
> some OWL Full interpretation that satisfies all the RDF graphs in K'."
> 
> Note the closing of the parenthesis, and the mention of K' as the
> imports closure of K. You would also have to make a similar change to
> the definition of OWL DL entailment.
> 
> Please let me know if you agree.
> 
> Jeff
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 02:34:59 UTC