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

Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 07 Jun 2002 18:51:01 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1023493862.25651.1041.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 17:39, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs)
> Date: 07 Jun 2002 16:56:42 -0500
> 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 16:46, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > i.e. there shouldn't be any axioms with existentials in
> > > > the conclusions. (there's a name for that fragment of FOL, no?
> > > > is that horn clauses? I often forget).
> > > 
> > > All I remember for the moment is "Clause Normal Form"
> > > and indeed no existentials in the conclusions
> > > but functional terms could be there I think...
> > 
> > Functional terms and existentials buy you the
> > same power/grief.
> > 
> > For OWL 1.0, I (presently) think we should stop
> > short of that sort of thing.
> > 
> 
> Stop short of what?  Functional terms?  Has anyone proposed functional
> terms?

er... Jos mentioned them...
> > > but functional terms could be there I think...


>  Existentials?  RDF has a form of existential.  Are you proposing
> that OWL not include blank nodes?

No, I'm proposing that, when OWL semantics are
expressed as N3 rules
or FOL axioms, which usually look like
  (forall (?x ?y ?z) (if PREMISE CONCLUSION))
that the conclusion shouldn't have any
functional terms nor existentially quantified
variables.

i.e. there are no axioms that conclude "there exists...".


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 19:50:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT