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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:54:11 +0100
Cc: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <D95157B9-08C9-4A06-854A-5275EBEDADB4@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
On 22 Aug 2011, at 15:32, Enrico Franconi wrote:

> I guess you forgot my favourite reference on Local CWA :-)
> 
> InanÁ Seylan, Enrico Franconi, Jos de Bruijn: Effective Query Rewriting with Ontologies over DBoxes. IJCAI 2009: 923-925.
> http://ijcai.org/papers09/Papers/IJCAI09-157.pdf

Ok, that causes me to reiterate my question (since I followed the Etzioni et al reference): What *isn't* "Local" CWA?

Presumably, it's not about arbitrary non-monotonic features (i.e., specially must be CWAesque reasoning).

Presumably it's stronger that merely combining OWA and CWA. (I.e., is the use of the K operator necessarily an instance of local CWA? Similarly with the use of neg?) It has to make an *assumption* right? So somehow be not specific to particular queries or axioms?

Thus, DBoxes would be exactly such, as you specify a set of predicates which are closed and thus to which CWA can apply. (I expect you could encode it in most logics with the requisite nonmonotonic features.)

Am I close? Is there a precise distinction?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 14:54:50 GMT

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