W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: OWL1.1 APis

From: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:25:54 +1300
Message-Id: <F30D0CED-E942-4BCD-838E-5C82D9E3380E@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, "'Dave Reynolds'" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

(just to add some irrelevant noise to your mailboxes...)

On 15 Dec 2006, at 09:49, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Dec 14, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Gerd Wagner wrote:
>
>>> Remember that consistency and entailment are closely related,
>>> e.g., P  is entailed by O if O & ~P is inconsistent.
>>
>> Only for classical logic, but not for many non-classical
>> logics that may be more relevant to KR than classical logic.
>
> Well this is so for RDF through OWL, which is, after all, what we  
> are *very specifically* talking about.

With care...
First of all, in RDF there is no negation, so the above can not even  
be stated.
Also in OWL-DL there is no negation in statements.
In DLs (like in modal logics - which are non-classical logics) the  
deduction theorem is not straightforwardly true.
As a matter of fact, the reduction from entailment to satisfiability  
is done by using the internalisation process (e.g., by having or  
mimicking the universal role).
ciao
--e.
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 04:27:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT