Re: LANG, SEM: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

Jim Hendler wrote:


> Jonathan-
>   You're new to the group, so you may have missed the part in the
> charter that makes it clear that expressing rules pre se is out of
> scope.  Logical entailment stated explicitely would therefore be out
> of scope (i.e. language features where an ontology would somehow add
> entailment rules).  Those rules that are implicit in the
> interpretation of the language (i.e. those that are in the semantic
> of the language) are in scope.

Well fair enough. But (or a b c d) _is_ in scope and the desire to have
unasserted statements applies just as well to "or" and "not" as it does to
"if-then", of course (or (and x y)(not x)) is close to "if x then y".

Jonathan