Re: datatyping in test for Pat's review

 On May 22, Jeremy Carroll writes: >  >  >  > pat hayes wrote: >  > > (Sending this quickly, more comments later.  -Pat ) > >  > > section 4.1.2. > > model/satisfying interpretation (Neither the RDF nor OWL documents uses  > > 'model' in this technical sense.) > >  > > 2nd 'consistent' is potentially misused (referring to an  > > interpretation), suggest > > consistent with the constraints ... /satisfies all the constraints .... > > >  >  > Proposed rewording of this section. > Note: this too some extent goes beyond the remit I felt I had after the LC  > vote, but I suspect it would be churlish of me to refuse. This new text  > conforms more closely with what the WG discussed at the January f2f. >  > OLD TEXT: > [[ > 4.1.2. Semantic Conformance > An OWL document is consistent with respect to a datatype theory [OWL  > Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if and only if there exists some model of  > the document that is consistent with the constraints specified by the  > relevant model theory (see [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax]: OWL Lite  > and OWL DL, OWL Full). > ]] >  > NEW TEXT: > [[ > 4.1.2. Semantic Conformance > An OWL Lite or OWL DL document is consistent with respect to a datatype  > theory [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if and only if > a corresponding collection of OWL DL ontologies in abstract syntax form  > with a separated vocabulary is simulataneously > <a  > href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/direct.html#direct_consistent" >  >consistent</a> with respect to the datatype theory. >  > An OWL Full document is consistent with respect to a datatype theory [OWL  > Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if and only if it is a member of an > imports closed collection of RDF graphs which is OWL Full consistent with > respect to the datatype theory. > ]] > with "imports closed" and "OWL Full consistent" linked to their definitions in > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/rdfs.html  I prefer something closer to the original text (at least for OWL DL consistency). The relevant words can be copied almost verbatim from S&AS. (The only problem there is that S&AS currently says "if" - I believe that this should be strengthened to "iff" - I will mention it to Peter.) E.g.:  An OWL DL document D is consistent with respect to datatype theory T if and only if there is some Abstract OWL interpretation I with respect to T such that I satisfies D.  An OWL Full document D is consistent with respect to a datatype theory T [OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax], if and only if there is some OWL Full interpretation I with respect to T such that I satisfies all the RDF graphs in the import closure of D.    >  > The second paragraph is slightly broken since the datatyping in the rdfs  > part of OWL S&AS is conspicuous by its absence, but I believe Peter will  > fix that. >  > The new text defers as much as I can to S&AS and all the technical terms  > are taken from S&AS. >  >   > > 4.2.2 > > Im still not happy with the way that conformance is stated. > >  >  > <discussion snipped> >  >  > > The cheapest way around this would be to add a remark when you give the  > > definition of 'complete' to indicate that this sense is not the standard  > > sense. For example > > "This is stronger than the usual sense of completeness used in  > > describing logical inference systems, which refers only to the detection  > > of inconsistency." >  >  > I will add this note, at the end of the section, but with "This" expanded  > to be something like "The use of the word 'complete' in complete and  > terminating and complete OWL Lite consistency checker"  I can live with this. I would prefer it if the text made it clear that the use of complete here *is* consistent with the standard usage in algorithms for decidable logics (e.g., in the modal, temporal and description logic communities, amongst others).  Ian  >  >  > >  > > A better way, IMHO, <snipped> >  >  > I did not hear wg support for a better way. >  > Jeremy >  >  >

Received on Saturday, 24 May 2003 08:21:02 UTC