Re: Asymmetry of Domain and Range in OWL

Well, OKBC was intended to be an API, in my understanding, so it may very 
well have capabilities that are beyond FOL, as OO languages do.

Regarding the axiomatization, why don't you try writing FOL axioms that 
capture this.  I don't understand how what you have said can be written in 
FOL.  Then, much more to the point, try it in OWL.

-Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA   
 
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/



Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU> 
10/22/2004 05:36 PM

To
Christopher Welty/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
rector@cs.man.ac.uk, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject
Re: Asymmetry of Domain and Range in OWL






Chris,

> Finally, and importantly, OO subclass is NOT subsumption, which was 
> precisely my point.  It is almost subsumption, but there is this 
> subtle difference. This is what the note needs to make clear.  There 
> is no way, in first-order logic, OWL, or RDF to characterize the 
> notion of "the class used when an object was created".  

Really? Not quite what you are referring to, but OKBC for example had 
this notion of "direct-type", which was exactly  this. and you can 
axiomatize it in FOL, I think, as a class C that it is a type of X such 
that no other subclass of C is also a type of X.

Am I missing something?

Natasha