Re: What do the ontologists want

A sample:

>>> requires a new semantics, defined on top of the semantics for the positive
>>> ground triples, and makes it essentially impossible to use the semantics
>>> for the positive ground triples to represent domain information.
>> 
>> Is that true indeed? If a logical formula is encoded as a set of
>> statements, wouldn't it be possible to find an interpretation that maps
>> the corresponding resources into the domain of discourse, which contains
>> people, Web sites, logical formulae and classes?
> 
> Sure, you could have an RDF ``predicate'' for disjunction and one for
> negation, etc., etc.  However, there is no connection between the RDF
> predicates and disjunction or negation within RDF, and this mapping is
> precisely what I meant by a new semantics.

Everybody,

Please do us all a favor and change the subject line when you change the
subject.  This thread has deviated pretty sharply from the subject of
ontolog(y|ies|ists).  Thanks.

  .bill

-- 
Bill Andersen
Chief Scientist, Ontology Works
1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104
Odenton, Maryland, 21113
Mobile 443-858-6444
Office 410-674-7600