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

Re: LANG: compliance levels

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 08:46:55 -0700
Message-ID: <3CD15F6F.F9D92F9A@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org


Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On May 2, Frank van Harmelen writes:
> > Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > >
> > Ian Horrocks wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest that where universal quantification is being widely
> > > > used in practice, it is either as a result of its being the only
> > > > available option and/or the fact that many users assume an implicit
> > > > existential - it never occurs to them that people all of whose
> > > > children are doctors may not have any children at all (I would hardly
> > > > bother telling you what type their children must be if they don't have
> > > > any children, would I?).
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > Arguing that there are different modelling styles is one thing,
> > arguing that everybody who has a different modelling style doesn't
> > understand what they are doing is quite another.
>
> I didn't say that, and I was not talking about "modelling style"
> (whatever that is). I was talking about cases of real misuse, or at
> least of imprecision. Examples are easy to find in the daml ontology
> library. E.g., in the world fact book ontology all restrictions are
> universal. I would guess that this is the result of a relatively
> arbitrary choice when translating from some modelling "formalism"
> where there is no alternative (or no distinction between universal and
> existential quantification). In many cases it seems quite clear that
> existential quantification would be more appropriate. E.g., a property
> of countries is their totalArea. This is modelled as a universal
> constraint (if a country has a totalArea then it must be of type
> xsd;decimal) when it seems more reasonable/precise to use an
> existential (all countries have a totalArea and it is of type
> xsd;decimal).

This is not completely correct.
What you are really saying as of course you know well with an existential is
that there is at least one value of totalArea and it is of type decimal.
You have left open the option for another total area to exist which is not a
decimal.
You would have to add that totalArea is functional in order to obtain accurate
conceptual modeling.

One could also argue that stating that at least one of the fillers of totalArea
is also imprecise conceptual modeling and it is only by the deduction that one
gets after one states that the role is function, that one gets precise modeling.

Thus, I do not think you have made your point   or  that the analogous point can
be made in the opposite direction as I claim I have just made.

> Note that this doesn't say that we know what the
> totalArea is or have to specify it, just that a value for the
> totalArea must exist. In this case I would say that the choice of
> universal quantification is not a question of style but simply of
> poor/imprecise modeling.
>
> >
> > Universal restrictions are exactly what is found in many OO languages:
> > "if slot S has a value, then it is of type X"
> > I find it hard to believe that entire communities don't understand what
> > they are writing down.
>
> If in these languages universal quantification is the only available
> option (I suspect that in many cases the precise semantics isn't
> clearly specified), that would account for why people are using it a
> lot wouldn't it?
>
> Ian
>
> >
> > Frank.
> >    ----

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705
0941
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 11:47:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT