W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > July 2005

Re: comment (non-member) on N-ary relations

From: Natasha Noy <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:44:28 -0700
Message-Id: <6FA03128-F11C-4365-9145-41244F503238@smi.stanford.edu>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
To: <john.madden@duke.edu>

John,

Thank you for the additional point - we will put a disclaimer along  
those lines in the next edition.

Natasha


On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:33 PM, John Madden wrote:




>
> Natasha,
>
> Thanks for your helpful responses !
>
> One follow-up on the Pattern 1 discussion point (about not  
> inadvertantly
> suggesting probability concepts are tractable in standard OWL/RDF).
>
> You make a great point:
>
>
>
>
>
>> I am
>> afraid that the idea of using speed won't much less controversial
>> than probability in some quarters :) One may interpret this as some
>> suggestion on representing temporal information, and of course we
>> don't want to do this in this note. I hope that the disclaimer that
>> we are *not* trying to make any suggestions on how to represent
>> probabilistic information, would be an acceptable compromise.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I suppose this highlights a more general point: Pattern 1 lends  
> itself to
> asserting all kinds of "How" semantics. But many kinds of "How"  
> semantics
> are formally representable only using expressive modal logics, and  
> OWL is
> not equivalent to an expressive modal logic.
>
> So maybe a footnote should just make the broad point that while  
> Pattern 1
> invites representing all kinds of "How" assertions, users should  
> bear in
> mind that for many of these--like those involving time, probablility,
> belief, obligation, etc.-to actually reason validly by machine is a
> fundamentally complex task, that in many cases is inherently  
> intractable
> using current formalisms, including OWL DL.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 13:44:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:43 UTC