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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:29:20 -0400
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020607222920F.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs)
Date: 07 Jun 2002 20:27:01 -0500

> On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 19:42, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [...]
> > > No, I'm proposing that, when OWL semantics are
> > > expressed as N3 rules
> > 
> > Are you seriously proposing that the semantics of a formalism be expressed
> > in N3?
> 
> yeah, or prolog or Java or whatever, no?
> 
> I'm not talking about the way it's specified; just
> one implementation technique.

Well, expressing the semantics of a formalism in another formalism that has
neither a well-specified syntax nor a well-specified semantics does not
seem like a winning strategy to me.  

> [...]
> > > that the conclusion shouldn't have any
> > > functional terms nor existentially quantified
> > > variables.
> > > i.e. there are no axioms that conclude "there exists...".
> > 
> > Well there are several axioms in the DAML+OIL axiomatization that have
> > existentially quantified variables in the conclusion.
> 
> the ones I'm concerned about have the quantifier, not just
> the variable, in the conclusion.

Are you saying that

     P -> Ex C

is different from

    Ex ( P -> C )

where x does not appear free in P?

> >  What should happen
> > to these axioms?
> 
> I'll have to look over the details, but basically,
> I think they should be removed.

Hmmm.  This would change the axiomatization considerably.

> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 

peter
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 22:29:31 GMT

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