- From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:29:12 +0000
- To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
- Cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, mdean@bbn.com, lynn.stein@olin.edu, hendler@cs.umd.edu, connolly@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
Frank, I agree with your point that some of daml+oil corresponds exactly to standard frame-based representation. However, if this frame-based subset is part of a larger dl-like representation, then I think that misconceptions can still arise on the part of non-dl-aware users (i.e., my point is not about formal semantics is about the relation between the story presented to the user and the underlying behaviour of the system). Enrico At 12:02 am +0100 19/12/01, Frank van Harmelen wrote: >Enrico, > >As you might guess, I disagree with what you wrote. >Of course, surface syntax should not give false impressions, >but I don't think this will be the case here: > >Some of the typical DAML+OIL idiom corresonds >*exactly*< with the >usual frame-based constructions. (for example the locally defined >range-striction on a slot, which I used as example in my msg; same >for cardinality constraints; same for "defined"-classes; etc). > >Your point about behaviour requires more thinking, I agree: > >> Even when dressed as a frame system a DL will always >> behave as a DL (with anonymous classes and automatic >> re-classification) > >I know that Stefan Decker has been thinking about a restricted >semantics of DAML+OIL which would indeed only deal with named >classes (for instance to classify instances). > >So, in my view, there are two issues, one easy, one hard, both important: > >- (easy): define frame-based modelling-idiom as syntactic >constructions for DAML+OIL >- (hard): try to think what DAML+OIL would look like if it only >dealt with named classes > >Frank. > ----
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2001 06:38:28 UTC