W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > October 2000

Re[1] DAML-ONT: the case for closedness

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:32:50 -0400
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, "Hart, Lewis" <lhart@grci.com>
Message-ID: <972055986017411@caramail.com>
> -------Message d'origine-------
> De : "Hart, Lewis" <lhart@grci.com>
> Date : 20/10/2000 16:04:26
> 
> A more exact summary of the ontological statements
> above
> might be, for the valid case:
> 
> ec:Product isa daml:Thing
> ec:Computer isa ec:Product
> qco:QuantumComputer isa ec:Computer
> qco:Q2000 instance-of qco:QuantumComputer
> 
> and for the invalid one:
> 
> bad:Thing isa ec:Computer
> 
> Four different ontologies are in use here: DAML (daml:), 
eCommerce (ec:),
> the QuantumComputerOntology (qco:) and the bogus one 
(bad:). What was
> actually
> said is not all dmal:Things are ec:Computers but just all 
bad:Things
> are ec:Computers. Perhaps this is not even bad in itself, 
if all that
> this ontology discusses are in fact computers.

In this case, I agree there is no problem,
but I believe that was not the original assumption,
which was that the "bad:" ontology state :

 daml:Thing isa ec:Computer

This is were problems begin...
Or do you consider that the "bad:" ontology can *not* state 
that ? In which case, your ontologies are closed, indeed. 
And yes there is no problem, but it contradicts the "say 
anything about anything" paradigm.

 Pierre-Antoine
______________________________________________________
Bote aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 10:32:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:37 GMT