Re: OWL semantics ( with focus on an axiomatization)

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: OWL semantics ( with focus on an axiomatization)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:06:26 -0700

[...]

> After daml-ont was released it was clear that there were disagreements (among
> committee members and the public) as to what terms meant.  Richard Fikes and I
> agreed that we should write a more precise specification of the meaning of the
> terms.
> I suggested a denotational semantics.  Richard suggested that specification in KIF
> might be useful to a significant segment of people.  We decided to go with
> Richard's hypothesis and provide a KIF-based specification as the first
> specification.  (as you all know of course there was also a model-theoretic
> specification done later by Peter et al).

Hmm.

Although the model theory specifically developed for DAML+OIL may not have
explicitly existed at the birth of DAML+OIL, I think that it is correct
that the model theory for various versions of OIL, especially the model
theory for Instance OIL (and related model theories for expressive DLs) is
essentially a model theory for DAML+OIL.  Model theories for expressive DLs
have been around for a while, predating any work on DAML-ONT.

[...]

peter