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

Jim,


> 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.
>   Note "IF, THEN" perilously close to out of scope.  "OR" within
> scope, "FORALL,=>" right out of there.

Does this mean that the types of ontologies discusses in Fikes' recent email
to the DAML list e.g.
ftp://ftp.ksl.stanford.edu/pub/KSL_Reports/KSL-00-01.htm are "out of scope"
?

I ask because I notice "=>" in there. Is this the difference between "DL"
and "PL"?

Jonathan