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).
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 04:27:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC