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 21:50:52 +0800
Message-ID: <SNT132-W241D591FDA1454B6453826D82A0@phx.gbl>
To: Parisa <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

 I am sorry that i have not expressed my argumentation clearly in the previous email. Here it is: Should Closed World Assumption(CWA) and 
Open World Assumption(OWA) be integrated?
backgrounds for 
argumentations:

CWA vs. OWA could be interprated at serveral 
levels:
(1) as notations: CWA and OWA are supposed to be bound to 
concepts(CPT);
we also call that this argumentation is at notation expression 
level.
At this level, integration means simply composition of 
notations.

(2) as concepts: CWA and OWA are supposed to represent the 
semantics of the individuals who utilize these two concepts to construct their 
expressions;
we also call that this argumentation is at conceptual level 
(conceptual modeling);
At this level, integration actually rely on the 
integration of both notations and semantics.

(3) as semantics: CWA and 
OWA are different in the sense of existence or ontologically.
They can not be 
integrated since that the level of existence is supposed to be not transcendable 
in an ultimate sense.
We call that this level is at semantic level.  Then discussions can be extended with less misunderstandings:)From: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:12:31 +0100
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: duanyucong@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.



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.

Great.
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".

Gibberish.
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!
Cheers,Bijan. 		 	   		  
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 13:51:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:59 GMT