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: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEGGCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Jim found a semantically significant typo.


Using this API it is very natural to ask give me all the triples that have
<foo> as subject and <type> as predicate.

[MISTAKE: delete "not"]
It will not be:
- difficult to implement
- and unhelpful to all users

if the correct answer is at least

owl:oneOf ( <foo> )
owl:oneOf ( <foo> <foo> )
owl:oneOf ( <foo> <foo> <foo> )


solipsism provides better answers and a more usable system, and hence a more
useable language.

[[[ (snip)
 but do you mean it will be or it will not be difficult to implement and
unhelpful?  that is I think you mean it is bad to have  the infinite series
of oneOfs as answers, but the above seems to argue you suddenly are in favor
of it -- is this a typo or a conceptual problem on my part?

I think the "not" in "It will not be" was a mistake, sorry.

What I was trying to say is that my understanding of Peter's assumption is
that all the set theoretic consequences of any owl ontology should be
present in all models. While I shared that assumption until the last
telecon, I believe that that presents signification implementation
difficulties, and if we can avoid it in a sound fashion then it is
positively desirable and not merely a way out of a hole.

> p.s. Solipcism would not be my choice for what to call this,

I am quite happy to change the name ... For the sake of this discussion, I
did want an extreme label.
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2002 10:15:27 UTC

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