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

Re: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:12:31 +0100
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <57E89A1C-6BA0-4AF0-9C33-7BF96DC30424@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: duanyucong <duanyucong@hotmail.com>
On 19 Aug 2011, at 12:58, duanyucong wrote:

> 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 :-)

Fair enough, but let me reiterate that thus far I do not consider us to be in an interesting dispute. I consider what you've written to be so far wrong as to not be a matter of dispute.

> 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 wrote is a theorem in OWL (ok, using my own funky notation :)). It clearly makes use of negation. It has a standard FOL translation. Etc. etc. It clearly involves open world semantics.

What you wrote is not part of the formal semantics of OWL, and your (1) isn't even a correct reading of the pragmatics (at least in most cases). C and ~C are contraries (i.e., complementary , obviously, by the semantics. Explicit contraries of this sort are generally contradictories. Which is all that this says.

(2) is just silly, yes? It's not a "might" not be consistent (satisfiable), it *is* not satisfiable.

> 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.

Not the formal semantics level, which is where most of these discussions take place.

> I will provide more details later.

I strongly suggest not!

Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 13:12:58 UTC

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