W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 03:20:10 -0400
Message-Id: <p05101504b8d624478147@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 14:28, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>  On March 21, Libby Miller writes:
>>  > >
>>  > > As noted in the design discussions for DAML+OIL, I don't
>>  > > see sufficient justification for making V disjoint
>>  > > from R.
>>  > >
>>  > > It seems silly not to be able to talk about the intersection
>>  > > of two sets of strings, or UniqueProperty's whose
>>  > > range is dates, or whatever.
>>  This means that any OWL reasoner has to take on responsibility for
>>  reasoning about types
>I gather when you say "OWL reasoner" you mean a complete
>I'm not very interested in such a thing.
>Regular old horn-clause/datalog reasoners
>(with some built-in predicates like
>string:lessThan and such) seem
>to get me what I need pretty well.
>So this argument about negation and complete reasoning
>doesn't persuade me that we should keep R and V disjoint.

I agree. Most of the actual reasoning with OWL is likely to be done 
with PERL scripts and other such ad-hoc and highly incomplete pieces 
of machinery in any case (how could we prevent this, even if we 
wanted to? We can't rule it illegal to use an incomplete reasoner), 
so these issues seem largely irrelevant; whereas the inconvenience 
and artificiality of maintaining the restriction is a real barrier to 
deployment. There is no *semantic* reason for the distinction.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 10:57:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC