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

Re: Survey on titles for OWL2 Semantics documents

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:45:59 +0100
Message-Id: <2BF9858B-3C56-4521-A7B6-2A1C4562D019@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@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:

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.

Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 15:43:24 UTC

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