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

Re: new topic: Should Closed World Assumption(CWA) and Open World Assumption(OWA) be integrated?

From: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:16:32 -0400
To: duanyucong <duanyucong@hotmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-id: <4E4EFCE0.70402@wright.edu>
Check on literature concerning local closed world semantics for
description logics. That's exactly about combining OWA and CWA. You'll
find quite a bit.

Just some pointers - the first two contain good related work sections:

Adila Alfa Krisnadhi, Frederick Maier, Pascal Hitzler
OWL and Rules.
In: A. Polleres, C. d'Amato, M. Arenas, S. Handschuh, P. Kroner, S.
Ossowski, P.F. Patel-Schneider (eds.), Reasoning Web. Semantic
Technologies for the Web of Data. 7th International Summer School 2011,
Galway, Ireland, August 23-27, 2011, Tutorial Lectures. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science Vol. 6848, Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.
To appear.

Adila Krisnadhi, Kunal Sengupta, Pascal Hitzler
Local Closed World Semantics: Keep it simple, stupid!
In: Riccardo Rosati, Sebastian Rudolph, Michael Zakharzaschev,
Proceedings of the 2011 International Workshop on Description Logics
(DL2011), Barcelona, Spain, July 2011. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol.
745, pp. 532-542.

Kunal Sengupta, Adila Krisnadhi, Pascal Hitzler
Local Closed World Reasoning: Grounded Circumscription for OWL.
In: Proceedings ISWC2011.
To appear.

Stephan Grimm, Pascal Hitzler
Semantic Matchmaking of Web Resources with Local Closed-World Reasoning.
International Journal of e-Commerce 12 (2), 89-126, Winter 2007-8.

- in these papers you also find pointers to work by others on this
topic. The papers are available from my homepage
http://www.pascal-hitzler.de/ , but it's down for maintenance this
weekend. Send me an email if you want the pdfs earlier.


On 8/19/2011 3:22 AM, duanyucong wrote:
> Dear all, I propose an discussion on new topic: Should Closed World
> Assumption(CWA) and Open World Assumption(OWA) be integrated? My
> initial 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 leve! l.At this level,
> integration action will mean defying the sense of ultimate of
> existence/ontology which is the inner character of semantic.Whatever
> can be done at this level is to identify the order (ORD) and
> classification (CLA) for the reference of conceptual modeling and
> validation of compositions of notations of concepts. Sincerely,
> Yucong Duan

Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler
Dept. of Computer Science, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
pascal@pascal-hitzler.de   http://www.knoesis.org/pascal/
Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Saturday, 20 August 2011 00:16:53 UTC

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