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

Re: DTTF: Can 'semantically closed' languages be extended?

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:47:40 +0200
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAA74ECC7.45337C11-ONC1256BB7.005662BD@agfa.be>

[...]

> My current impression is that some method of using RDF triples for purely
> syntactic purposes in OWL is needed -- indeed:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0087.html, is
yet
> another example of why syntactic triples are needed.
>
> My current preference would be some way, perhaps a triple, of stating
that a
> particular predicate is to be used for syntactic purposes, i.e. as a
> syntactic . e.g.
>
> <owl:List> <rdf:type> <rdf:syntax> .
>
> or
>
> <owl:List> <rdf:subClassOf> <rdf:Syntax> .
>
> would either jibe with the RDF MT? If so, this would seem to be an easy
> change that wouldn't be too intrusive on any syntax (though would require
> support from RDF Schema 'inferencing engines'). Dan? Jos?

On the other hand I have experience that asserting
acyclic descriptions isn't harmful
e.g. besides asserting

  :John a [ ont:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) ] .

(and having the object as a functional term)
there is nothing going wrong when we also assert

  :John a _:905719 .
  _:905719 ont:intersectionOf _:5488661 .
  _:5488661 owl:first :Student .
  _:5488661 owl:rest _:6794265 .
  _:6794265 owl:first :Employee .
  _:6794265 owl:rest owl:nil .

Also on the other hand I have experience that in the
presence of (vicious) cycles a sound proof argument
can never contain them if -top-level- assertions of
negated consequents are not allowed.

--
Jos
Received on Sunday, 12 May 2002 11:48:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT