W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > July 2005

RE: NAF v. SNAF - where is this being addressed?

From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:46:40 +0200
To: "'Dave Reynolds'" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050705194733.3C1515082AF@smtp2.TU-Cottbus.De>

> I think the point is that RDFS and OWL are designed to be 
> monotonic 

Monotonicity should not be a primary W3C design goal.
It's a nice property for nice and clean mathematical 
theories, since mathematics deals with eternal truths
and with cumulative knowledge.

But in Web information management practices we do not
deal with nice and clean axiomatic theories. Rather,
we have to deal with all kinds of information items,
most of them being subject to change (there are not
many eternal truths, neither in factual knowledge, 
nor in vocabulary knowledge), and many of them being
contradictory. So, we should better not expect too 
much monotonicity on the Web.

> NAF violates this, hence its use in the semantic web being 
> ... a cause for debate.

I know. But I find the effort of some to ban NAF from W3C 
languages a useless attempt of exorcism, which is doomed
to fail.

And again: the important point about a Web-oriented use
of NAF is not really "scope" (in the sense of provenance)
but its relationship to definitive knowledge (as captured
by N3's "definitiveDocument" construct).

-Gerd

--------------------------------------------
http://www.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~gwagner
Email: G.Wagner@tu-cottbus.de
Brandenburg University of Technology 
at Cottbus, Germany
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 19:58:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:21 GMT