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

Re: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:35:48 -0400
Message-id: <DE3F522D-A91B-4E34-A757-43631EE189DD@acm.org>
Cc: <phayes@ihmc.us>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: duanyucong <duanyucong@hotmail.com>

It seems to me that Pat and Bijan have described the key technical characteristics of the CWA and OWA.  And contrary to what you seem to have said in your recent reply quoted below, these are not somehow limited to their usage in discussions about OWL.  What Pat has described is the generally-understood meaning of these terms anywhere they are used (e.g., in the database community).  However, I wonder if we could approach this thread from a somewhat different direction?  Your initial posting had the subject:  "Should Closed World Assumption(CWA) and Open World Assumption(OWA) be integrated?"  The subject then immediately changed to "A solution to integrate CWA into OWA".  What I haven't found (perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you've said) is any motivation for integrating them.  In other words, what do you want to do that suggests to you the need to "integrate" CWA and OWA (or alternatively, what do you want to do that the lack of "integration" of CWA and OWA prevents you from doing)?  What are the applications?

By the way, this may not be what you are after, but there is a sense in which you CAN "integrate" the CWA and the OWA, and Pat has already discussed it.  See, for example, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jul/0067.html  Basically, in an otherwise "open world system", you explicitly describe the closed world AND you explicitly describe the closed world assumption itself (the assumption that this closed world is complete in some sense).  Of course, in this approach you're not really integrating the closed and open world *assumptions*, you are making the closed world assumption about some aspect of the world *explicit* (i.e., no longer an "assumption") within an OWA system.  

--Frank Manola 

On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:40 PM, duanyucong wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> Thank you.
> Limited within the definitions of OWL, i agree with the content which has been repeated by you even before this discussion.
> Please, I have no argumentations with the definitions and no intention to as well. 
> I would like to say sorry to you for that my previous expression are not professional from the criterior/definitions of OWL specification. 
> I will try more to follow the definitions of OWL when i direct future questions to you.
> So now please have a nice day.
> Yucong
> > Subject: Re: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.
> > From: phayes@ihmc.us
> > Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:12:59 -0500
> > CC: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk; public-owl-dev@w3.org
> > To: duanyucong@hotmail.com
> > 
> > Permit me to try to help with some explanations. 
> > 
> > Yucong, greetings. Bijan is correct in that it is rather hard for us to see what exactly it is that you are saying, and that you seem to be using familiar technical words in ways that do not correspond to their accepted meaning. As I share Bijan's state of confusion regarding your exact meaning, you will have to bear with me if I misunderstand you. However, I will try to respond to your questions as best I can. 
> > 
> > Your thread began by contrasting the CWA and the OWA, and trying to suggest some way in which they could be resolved or unified. However, your statements in these early emails strongly suggest that your understanding of what these terms (OWA and CWA) mean, does not correspond to their actual meaning in the technical literature which uses them. 
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 21:36:17 UTC

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