Background question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Background question

Michael Latta

I am looking for pointers or explanation on the statements that OWL-Full is not computable.  Just the definition of metaclasses should not prevent the reasoner from being deterministic.  Is it something with the use of class expressions?  Are there documented cases that are an issue?  All the reasoners seem to be DL, and there are aspects of Full I would want access to such as metaclasses.  Any pointers would be appreciated.

 

Michael

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Background question

Nick Drummond
Michael,

I won't even begin to pretend that I understand this fully so if anyone
wants to chip in ;)
You might find that the following [1] holds at least some of the answers.
I've tried to get to grips with it, but its not that clear - some things
are better to just accept :)

Nick

[1]
http://dip.semanticweb.org/documents/Boris-Motik-On-the-Properties-of-Metamodeling-in-OWL.pdf

Michael Latta wrote:

> I am looking for pointers or explanation on the statements that
> OWL-Full is not computable.  Just the definition of metaclasses should
> not prevent the reasoner from being deterministic.  Is it something
> with the use of class expressions?  Are there documented cases that
> are an issue?  All the reasoners seem to be DL, and there are aspects
> of Full I would want access to such as metaclasses.  Any pointers
> would be appreciated.
>
>  
>
> Michael
>
>  
>

--

Nick Drummond

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~drummond/ <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/%7Edrummond/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Background question

Ulrike Sattler
In reply to this post by Michael Latta
there is an ISWC 2005 paper by Boris Motik explaining this. 

Cheers, Uli

On 10 Mar 2006, at 21:05, Michael Latta wrote:

I am looking for pointers or explanation on the statements that OWL-Full is not computable.  Just the definition of metaclasses should not prevent the reasoner from being deterministic.  Is it something with the use of class expressions?  Are there documented cases that are an issue?  All the reasoners seem to be DL, and there are aspects of Full I would want access to such as metaclasses.  Any pointers would be appreciated.

 

Michael

 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Background question

sethladd
Here's the link to the paper:

http://dip.semanticweb.org/documents/Boris-Motik-On-the-Properties-of-Metamodeling-in-OWL.pdf

On 3/20/06, Uli Sattler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> there is an ISWC 2005 paper by Boris Motik explaining this.
>
> Cheers, Uli
>
>
> On 10 Mar 2006, at 21:05, Michael Latta wrote:
>
>
>
> I am looking for pointers or explanation on the statements that OWL-Full is
> not computable.  Just the definition of metaclasses should not prevent the
> reasoner from being deterministic.  Is it something with the use of class
> expressions?  Are there documented cases that are an issue?  All the
> reasoners seem to be DL, and there are aspects of Full I would want access
> to such as metaclasses.  Any pointers would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html