W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2007

Re: slotted notation -summary

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:43:54 -0500
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <29614.1167925434@cs.sunysb.edu>


Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> 
> What I don't understand is what people want out of this slotted notation 
> in the first place to know whether the open world assumption would 
> negate its value to them.
> 
> It's certainly the case that one of our major support costs is users 
> approaching RDFS/OWL as if it were object oriented and implicitly making 
> closed world assumptions and getting burned. So I'm keen that whatever 
> choices are made here are at least spelled out extremely clearly.


We have two options (at least):

1. Not to introduce signatures into the core.

2. Introduce signatures into the core and require that

   p(foo->a), p(foo=>b) implies a:b.

   This doesn't preclude CWA in the dialects because for CWA one needs to
   introduce the notion of well-typed models.
   
   The notion of a well-typed model is an elaboration on the notion of
   intended models where the above property is satisfied.
   
   For instance, there would be no well-typed models for {p(foo->a),
   p(foo=>b)}.  This is how it is defined, for instance, in F-logic under
   the LP semantics.

   


	--michael  
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 15:44:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:35 GMT