- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:16:13 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Dan 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. Bernard
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 05:16:23 UTC