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

At 4:15 AM -0400 5/22/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
>Subject: Re: S&AS: Treatment of imports in RDF-Compatible Semantics
>Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 03:52:24 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>  From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
>>  Subject: S&AS: Treatment of imports in RDF-Compatible Semantics
>>  Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:48:11 -0400
>
>[...]
>
>>  Yes, there is an oversight here.  I propose, however, to instead use
>>
>>    Definitions: Let K and Q be imports-closed collections of RDF graphs.
>>    [... as before]
>>
>>  peter
>
>On further reflection, I propose to leave the definition the same, but to
>add wording to the effect that entailment is best carried out on
>imports-closed collections, as follows:
>
>
><p>
>OWL Full entailment as defined here is not the service that should be
>provided by OWL tools.  Instead, OWL tools should provide a service that
>first computes the imports closures and then determines whether one
>imports-closed collection entails the other.
></p>
>
>peter

I would oppose that - we have continually avoided expressing things 
in processing terms, and I definitely do not want a reference to what 
OWL tools should do in a normative document.   I'm much happier with 
the first solution above.
  -JH


-- 
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 Thursday, 22 May 2003 08:08:24 UTC