Re: SEM Solipsistic answers to Peter's entailments and Paradox

On Fri, 2002-03-15 at 06:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]
> Entailments
> ===========
> 
> A: { Person, Student } = { Student, Person }
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> Peter:
> [[[
> :John a _:1 .
> :_1 owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) .
> 
> should entail
> 
> :John a :_2 .
> :_2 owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Person ) .
> ]]]
> 
> Solipsistically NO, :_2 does not necessarily exist.

That seems to undercut the whole idea of shared ontologies.

If I have to mention, in my student/person ontology,
all of the possible constructions of classes that might
be relevant, including all the combinations of
student/person with all other classes in the web,
we're pretty much nowhere, aren't we?

I hope we can do better than that.

Lynn, you suggested some intuitionistic/constructivist
style stuff... can you see a way to get the
relevant/intuitive conclusions to hold without
"madness"?

> 
> But
> 
> :John a :_1 .
> :_1 owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) .
> :_2 owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Person ) .
> 
> solipsistically entails
> 
> :John a :_2 .

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