W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Asymmetry of Domain and Range in OWL

From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:42:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4179C512.3000803@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
CC: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, rector@cs.man.ac.uk
as a followup to the question about using the class that was used in the 
definition,
 the classic knowledge representation system had the ability to retrieve 
told information (thus told supertypes would be obtainable and 
distinguishable from derived supertypes).

Deborah

Christopher Welty wrote:

>
> 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
>
>

-- 
 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
 353 Serra Mall
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/index.html 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941
Received on Saturday, 23 October 2004 02:44:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:13 GMT