W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Survey on titles for OWL2 Semantics documents

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:58:50 -0400
To: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20671.1222084730@ubuhebe>


> On 19 Sep 2008, at 16:29, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> > Ah! So the remark could be translated as 'there is nothing DL specific
> > in it'. Right? This makes sense...
> >
> 
> indeed, this is what I tried to say, cheers, Uli

I'm baffled by this.

I'm pretty sure they are not the semantics of full first-order logic.

And they are the semantics of OWL DL, which I understand is a
description logic (DL) language.  (As the W3C Recommendation on the
subject says, "OWL DL is so named due to its correspondence with
description logics".)

So that makes them very DL specific.

What have I got wrong about this?  

Maybe you're parsing the phrase "DL Semantics" in parallel to like
"Model-Theoretic Semantics", as if the term "DL" is indicating how the
semantics are specified?  That would explain your comments, I suppose.
Or you think other people will parse it that way?  To mean "DL
Semantics" is just a less clumsy way of saying "Semantics of the OWL DL
family of languages", and as such it seems like the perfect name.

I note that the phrase "DL Semantics" is often used in our meetings
(Google doesn't index our minutes very well, but it finds occurances in
63 documents) and I don't think I've heard anyone complain about this
usage.  Maybe soemthing in the intonation of "DL" makes it more clear.

(Meanwhile, we have a real problem here.  We have at least two No votes
to every title.  If we mean "No" like "formal objection" (which is how I
meant it - but the survey isn't clear about this), then we're not going
to be able to publish until we make some serious headway on this.)

(Re: comments about "Yes, and prefer not" -- that's a way of saying you
don't like this option, but you don't actually believe it would do
serious harm to OWL to go with it -- ie, you're not going to formally
object.)

    -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 12:01:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC