- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:24:09 +0100
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Uli Sattler" <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 22 Sep 2008, at 15:09, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] > This may well be the case. But if I knew something about FOL, and > take the > current OWL 2 Semantics, then I will definitely miss support for > certain FOL > stuff. Come on. A DL is a fragment of FOL. Obviously the semantics are a fragment of the FOL semantics. But they are not a *different kind of semantics*. We talk about OWL being a fragment of FOL *all the time*. [snip] > So the semantics given in the "OWL 2 Semantics" document is, in > this sense, > very dependent on some particular description logic. And this > suggests, in > my opinion, to give the semantics document a name that at least > gives a hint > to readers that there is some description logic around, which is > the base. In my experience, this is much more likely to cause confusion (I can point you to email in webont where FOL logicians expressed all sorts of confusion about whether a DL's semantics was a fragment of FOL semantics). If you *seriously* think that an FOL person will be confused by *missing syntax* (which IS what we're talking about), then have the first paragraph read: "Since OWL 2 is a fragment of first order logic, the semantics are a fragment of the FOL semantics" Even THAT seems nutty because, in this morass we have, it suggest semantic subsetting. I've *never* seen the confusion you've alluded too. I've often seen the confusion I'm trying to avoid. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 14:21:36 UTC