W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:59:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031118.085920.123779651.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: stefan@ISI.EDU
Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org

From: Stefan Decker <stefan@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:44:30 +0000

> At 01:02 PM 11/18/2003, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >From: Stefan Decker <stefan@ISI.EDU>
> >Subject: Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF
> >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:15:47 +0000
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > as far as I understand the discussion there are different issues:
> > >
> > > 1) Reasoning with the Closed World Assumption on a given graph
> > > 2) Naming a given graph.
> > > 3) Collecting (or completing) a graph (data transclusion)
> > >
> > > I think we all agree that doing 1) is easy.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Not so fast.  What if it is difficult to determine just what objects
> >(belonging to a particular class) exist?  Then what does closing (a class)
> >mean?
> Free your mind! (from semantics ;-).
> I was talking about the graph - not the semantics.
> Closed World applied to Description Logic is a different story.
> 
> Best,
>          Stefan

Where did Description Logics come into the story?  Just about any language
that goes beyond ground atomic facts and datalog has this issue.  How would
you close P(a) v P(b) with respect to P?  Even just adding functional
properties to RDFS causes issues.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 08:59:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:15 UTC