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

Re: OWL Lite semantics

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:35:56 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b47ba1bfd1829ba@[]>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

>here is a bit more than i gave earlier a few of the places working 
>on dls in the
>70s and 80s.
>your search for description logics on google was thwarted because description
>logics have had a few names.
>kl-one-like systems/languages, term subsumption languages, and  terminological
>logics were used for a while.

Not that this discussion matters to anything, but I guess I tend to 
think of DLs in the modern sense as not going all the way back to 
KL-ONE. I know that Ron saw CLASSIC as simply a continuation of the 
then-ten-year-old KL-one effort, but it is worth pointing out that in 
its early days, KL-ONE was not seen simply as a decideable subset of 
FOL, but was instead seen as, and actively promoted as, an 
*alternative* to logic, part of the 'frame-based' family of languages 
which were supposed to replace logic with something new. Some people 
still think of them that way. History is littered with new formalisms 
that have turned out in retrospect to have been simply subcases of 
logic, but to claim that this is what they were all along is 
disingenuous, seems to me. Minsky certainly wouldn't have said that 
Frames were just a logical notation, for example. It was your 
colleague Alex Borgida who finally put the original KL-one ideas to 
rest in the early 90s, and I would date the modern DL field as 
stemming from the CLASSIC work that your group did about 15 (OK, not 
ten) years ago. That is what I was thinking of in my 'decade ago in 
Bell Labs' comment, anyway.


>the best source on DLs is the web page
>from there you can get to a listing of the history of the workshops 
>from 1980 on
>with the first one that actually had description logics in the name being  in
>1992  co-located with kr'92 in boston.
>another good source on dls is the handbook of dl -
>another good source on dls is the dl reference index from patrick lambrix's
>pages - http://www.ida.liu.se/labs/iislab/people/patla/DL/references.html
>which is searchable from
>while it is not totally complete, it is not bad at coverage.
>also, a partial list of dl researchers is up at:
>and an outdated list of some dl systems is up at:
>hopefully this helps.
>pat hayes wrote:
>>  >From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>>  >Subject: Re: OWL Lite semantics
>>  >Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:34:24 -0600
>>  >
>>  >[...]
>>  >
>>  >>  OK, I didnt mean to start this old argument up again, but just to set
>>  >>  the record straight.  [...]  It just
>>  >>  seems to make more sense to base something this large-scale on
>>  >>  foundations that go back 60 years than ones that go back about a
>>  >>  decade and start in Bell Labs.
>>  >
>>  >If we are going to set the record straight, lets at least base it in
>>  >reality.  Description logics as a field go back 25 years, not 10, and
>>  >didn't start in Bell Labs.  Bell Labs has never even been the dominant
>>  >player in the field.
>>  OK, if you want to go all the way back to roots, then I can take
>>  logic back to Frege and Peirce, giving it more like 120 years than
>>  60. I was dating it from the deployment of CLASSIC, which I think of
>>  as the first real DL. The papers you cite are prehistory for DLs, not
>>  origins.
>>  BTW, I did a Google search and the earliest date I can find
>>  associated with the term is 1996, at a workshop that you helped
>>  organize. So OK, I should have said 15 years, not a decade.
>>  I am surprised to hear that Bell wasn't the dominant player, though.
>>  I guess I associate Ron, you, Alex and and Deb all with DLs at Bell,
>>  and have always though of that as something of an axis. Where would
>>  you locate the dominant players? (Genuine question)
>>  Pat
>>  >Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>  >Bell Labs Research
>  > >
>>  >
>>  >@PhDThesis{brachman:thesis,
>>  >  title=               "A Structural Paradigm for Representing Knowledge",
>>  >  author=      "Brachman, R. J.",
>>  >  school=      "Harvard University",
>>  >  year=                "1977",
>>  >  address=     "Cambridge, MA",
>>  >  note=                "Revised version published as BBN Report No.~3605,
>>  >                Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA, July, 1978."}
>>  >
>>  >Written when Ron was a student at Harvard and/or working for BBN.
>>  >
>>  >@InProceedings{brachman-levesque:tractability,
>>  >  title=               "The Tractability of Subsumption in Frame-Based
>>  >                Description Languages",
>>  >  author=      "Brachman, Ronald J. and Levesque, Hector J.",
>>  >  crossref=    "aaai84",
>>  >  pages=               "34--37"}
>>  >
>>  >Written when both Ron and Hector were working for Fairchild/Schlumberger.
>>  --
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  IHMC                                    (850)434 8903   home
>>  40 South Alcaniz St.                    (850)202 4416   office
>>  Pensacola                               (850)202 4440   fax
>>  FL 32501                                        (850)291 0667    cell
>>  phayes@ai.uwf.edu                 http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>>  s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
>  Deborah L. McGuinness
>  Knowledge Systems Laboratory
>  Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
>  Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
>  email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
>  URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
>  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 15:36:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC