absolute YES answer that I would like to give.
be defined such that a reasoner is conformant if it is sound w.r.t.
therefore be a conformant (compliant if you prefer) OWL RL reasoner.
> claim that it is OWL RL compliant?
>> This conversation becomes more and more confusing.
>> is exactly the "competitive" argument.
>> the rules and declaring ourselves to be sound and complete w.r.t.
>> perspective! Of course we could give up on completeness w.r.t.
>> goes out of the window.
>> produced such a mess spurs me on.
>>>> was always clearly stated (see Section 4.4 of the existing spec).
>>> statement. Thanks to Michael for clarifying it (at least for me).
>>>> strange arguments about OWL RL reasoners not being "competitive"
>>>> with OWL DL/Full reasoners/semantics.
>>> This was not my argument, or at least not the intention of it:-).
>>> declare themselves sound and complete w.r.t that semantics.
>>> a feedback may help us in moving forward.
>>>>> Rule set (and _only_ that), then this would be a perfectly o.k.
>>>>>> correspond to query answering.
>>>>>> entailment *will* follow from the rules.
>>>>>> some strange assumptions about how conformance will be defined.
>>>>>>> both the DL semantics *and* the ruleset.
>>>>>>> ruleset (and for customers/users of such reasoners, either).
>>>>>>> implementation of OWL R.
>>>>>>> reasoner is a "valid" OWL R reasoner, i.e. is sound w.r.t.
>>>>>>> interesting property of an OWL R reasoner in practice.
>>>>>>>> language, this would be a significant demotion.
>>>>>>> current rules creates such new bNodes on the consequent side.
>>>>>>> don't believe that this can be overcome.
>>>>>>>     ex:C rdf:type owl:Class .
>>>>>>>     ex:D rdf:type owl:Class .
>>>>>>>     ex:C rdfs:subClassOf ex:D .
>>>>>>>     _:X owl:intersectionOf ( ex:C ex:D ) .
>>>>>>>     _:X rdfs:subClassOf ex:D .
>>>>>>> the LHS of subclass axioms.
>>>>>>> G_R) as a result.
>>>>>>> produce the bNode '_:X', which occurs in G_R but not in G_L.
Next message: Alan Ruttenberg: "Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13"
Previous message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: Agenda for Teleconference.2008.08.13"
In reply to: Alan Wu: "Re: ISSUE 131 (OWL R Unification): Different semantics on syntactic fragment"
Next in thread: Michael Schneider: "RE: ISSUE 131 (OWL R Unification): Different semantics on syntactic fragment"
Reply: Michael Schneider: "RE: ISSUE 131 (OWL R Unification): Different semantics on syntactic fragment"