W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:07:18 -0500
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: las@olin.edu, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl, horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, mdean@bbn.com, lynn.stein@olin.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org, hendler@cs.umd.edu, connolly@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011220190718K.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 01:00:33 +0100

> 
> > One place to see the problem is in KIF.  The KIF definition
> >    http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html
> > gives an example where a truth predicate can cause problems.
> 
> I see
> 
> > In the DAML+OIL area, if you require the presence of all syntax-like
> > constructs in the semantics you can easily end up with structures like
> >
> >    :_x complementOf :_x .
> >
> > in all interpretations.  Now consider whether :_x is an instance of :_x.
> 
> I think that complementOf is an irreflexive property
> How could we express that in SWOL?
> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

SWOL has no such construct.  Even if it did, you could construct a
three-element loop which has the same problem.  There are also lots of
other constructs that cause similar problems.

peter
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 19:08:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:15 GMT