- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:45:59 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 22 Sep 2008, at 16:19, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> I know people coming from a first order background who generally read >> too much into the "DL" when people say "DL Semantics". Indeed, I've >> (and many others) have wasted a lot of time trying to get people to >> believe that the semantics of a DL is just normal first order >> semantics. > > Okay, I guess I'll have to take your word for that. Really? is there a problem with taking my word about my own experience? Interesting. As it stands, you needn't strain your credulousness so very far: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0092.html Pat Hayes wrote: >> If we are thinking in >> DL terms, where all reasoners can be expected to be dealing with >> decideable questions and so for a complete reasoner a 'not proven' >> answer amounts to a 'proven not' answer, then Ian is right. If on the >> other hand we are thinking always in terms of subsets of FOL, DLs are *contrasted* with subsets of FOL. I'm pretty sure I can find other such examples in the public record (it's a bit tedious because the obvious search terms grab waaaay too much). I can also detail several other examples for which I have no written record. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 15:43:24 UTC