W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > July to September 2011

RE: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

From: duanyucong <duanyucong@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:58:11 +0800
Message-ID: <SNT132-W55798D81A72935F313E5E4D82A0@phx.gbl>
To: Parisa <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Dear  Bijan,  Your words can not be insult to me, since that i am not in content of the discussion.It is the topic which draws our argumentations.So please feel free to expresss anything valueable directly but not necessary to be too emotional :-)An exception, i am ok with your critisim on my ugly english:-(  in your example, "C & ~C => owl:Nothing". my argumentation is that there might be more possibilities which might not be stopped from extending from  "C & ~C => "e.g.  (1)C & ~C => either C or ~C is incorrect. (2)C & ~C => the expression might  not be a correct expression to express a consistent semantics. what i have presented in the previous email is intended based on distinguishment on the levels of  "concept" and "notations of concept" vs. "semantics of concepts".The argumentations in previous email refers to at semantic level mainly. I will provide more details later. Sincerely, Yucong Duan  
 From: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:26:14 +0100
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: duanyucong@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

I'm going to be blunt: AFAICT, most of what you've written is gibberish. I say this not to insult, though that's hardly avoidable, but to make clear how off base what you've written is. It may have its roots in some idiosyncratic terminological choices you make...I don't know.
On 18 Aug 2011, at 22:27, duanyucong wrote:Dear all,
I think that there is usually a misunderstanding on the meaning of CWA vs. OWA:

These are really well understood notions with reasonably precise technical meanings. I know people often *are* confused, but I don't think there's a systematic confusion in the literature.
This is a warning sign.
It is  because of that a discussion might be extended based on implicit understanding of the semantic possibilities of these two concepts.
for the cases like "...Therefore facts not stored in the database and not derivable from the existing data 
are considered false in the CWA and unknown or possible in the OWA.... " 
---http://www.dsc.ufcg.edu.br/~ulrich/Artigos/MITO SBBD97.pdf 

This is a perfectly reasonable, if not ideal, account.
My argumentation: 
1. in OWA, negation is not "considerated" at all.
Regardless of the scare quotes, this is trivially refutable.
	C => ~D.	~D => E.entails	C => E.Negation is fully considered.
	C & ~C => owl:Nothing.
Negation is fully (and actively) considered. I.e., unlike the first one, you cannot treat the negation as part of the atomic concept and preserve reasoning.
	a: C&~C.is inconsistent.
Negation is fully considered.
This is obviously standard first order negation.
 Or in another word, negation is not cognitively available in the mind, and subsequently not available in semantic expressions produced/organized in the mind. 
This is really quite meaningless even on congitive science terms, but is obviously unrelated to the technical, mathematical aspects of OWA/CWA.
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 11:58:49 UTC

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