RE: OWL reasoner, validator, editor ...


I clearly understand your position, and that I ask for (re)opening a can of
worms ...

Just one precision, though ...

> > Does not it make sense
> > to envision OWL editors checking at editing time for trivial local
> > inconsistencies, and defering to more powerful reasoners the task of
> > detecting the more difficult inconsistencies?
> Well, no, it does not make sense, to me. That is: I do not know what
> you mean by "trivial, local inconsistencies."

... I don't know, either, actually, and I acknowledge "trivial, local
inconsistency" is a very fuzzy concept as stated.
What I have in mind is:

"Trivial" : the inconsistency is directly entailed from predicates
explicitly asserted in the ontology, and needs no further inference, or
maybe some "minimal" one, and by no means complete computation of the
closure. I guess "minimal" could be more formally expressed in terms of
length of a proof, but maybe I'm wrong.

"Local" : the inconsistency is not entailed from external reference(s)
through "imports" or otherwise.


Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 05:16:23 UTC