- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:19:43 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jeremy: >> We are not expecting complete Full reasoners, so we are not expecting anyone >> to prove the Full nonentailments or consistency tests. Ian: >This is not correct. It is perfectly possible to have an incomplete >reasoner that can prove some or all of the Full nonentailments or >consistency tests. I wasn't trying to talk about what is possible, more about what we are expecting ... I am intending to enumerate the (approved) Full Nonentailments and Consistency tests and suggest we demote them to extra credit, which does not prohibit implementations from proving them but merely marks it as not within *our* expectation. Given the logical possibility of automatically constructing the proofs would you oppose such reclassification? Jeremy
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 09:20:20 UTC