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 03:33:52 -0400
Message-Id: <p05101506b8d62643f857@[]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>On March 22, Jeremy Carroll writes:
>>  >
>>  > [1]
>>  http://www-lti.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~clu/papers/archive/lutzdiss.pdf
>>  Ian,
>>  I don't think I have time to read 225 pages ... :(
>>  Is there a shorter version of the central argument?
>The key point is that without separation of properties, when you
>negate restriction classes, e.g., (hasClass age >=21) you get (toClass
>age (union <21 Thing)), which breaks the separation of the datatype
>and abstract domains which is itself required in order to allow
>datatype reasoning to be separated from class based reasoning.

Wait. That seems circular. Isn't this supposed to be an argument for 
why we need to separate datatype reasoning from class-based reasoning 
in the first place? Suppose we just say that, OK, they are not 
separated. Then the above argument says that if we have negation then 
they are not separated. But we already knew that, right?


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 10:57:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT