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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:14:09 -0000
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEGGCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> 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?

No you don't have to mention them.

If nobody mentions them these constructs do not appear.

If you or somebody else mentions them then the constructs are present in all
interpretations of the complete set of assertions and they have the meaning.

So maybe you say:

John a Person .
John a Student .

And I ask a query system

WHO a owl:intersectionOf(Person Student) .

The query system then adds the classes needed to express the query to the
knowledge base e.g. by asserting

_:2 owl:intersectionOf(Person Student ).

then the rephrased query

WHO a _:2 .

can be answered by entailment .

John a Person .
John a Student .
_:2 owl:intersectionOf(Person Student ).


John a _:2 .

and your knowledge (described in one way with one set of constructions) has
been shared with me asking a query using a different construction.

Received on Saturday, 16 March 2002 10:15:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:42 UTC