Re: Survey on titles for OWL2 Semantics documents

On 22 Sep 2008, at 17:25, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> 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.
>
> I'm sorry if my words came across as distrustful; it was simply that I
> had some difficulty reconciling your experience with my own.

No worries. I was just confused about what the issue was :)

>   In my
> experience, people use the term "DL Semantics" quite comfortably.  So
> when you disagreed, I had some real dissonance, which took a while to
> sort out.  The reality, I'm sure, is that you're talking to different
> people and in a different context -- I rarely talk to people who  
> have a
> clue what model theory is, unless they are in this WG, so of course  
> we'd
> have different experiences here.

Yep. It's really when dealing with folks who know FOL but *don't know  
DLs*. They see the class/object stuff and the "ontology" and think  
they are dealing with FrameLand.

People with some familiarity with DLs already know that SHROIQ is a  
fragment of FOL.

Cheers,
Bijan.