- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:01:25 -0500
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Jim Hendler wrote: >> >> 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) >> > >> >> 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 > > > >I also prefer the "Let K and Q be imports-closed collections of RDF >graphs." wording. Me too. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 21:01:28 UTC