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

Re: ISSUE: DAML+OIL semantics is too weak

From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 00:52:45 -0500
Message-Id: <a05111726b90ced442bca@[65.217.30.195]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>TITLE:       DAML+OIL semantics is too weak
>DESCRIPTION: DAML+OIL semantics (both the model theory and the
>	     axiomatization) are too weak.  For example, it does not allow
>	     the inference of membership in any restrictions that are not
>	     present in the knowledge base, even though many of these are
>	     desirable consequences.   For example, if John is an instance
>	     of both Person and Employee, DAML+OIL does not sanction the
>	     conclusion that John is an instance of an intersection of
>	     Person and Employee.
>RAISED BY:   Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>STATUS:	     RAISED
>REFERENCE:   too numerous to find a definitive reference

Peter, why do you characterize this as the *semantics* being too 
weak? To me that suggests that you have in mind that there is a 
'real' or 'intended' notion of inference for DAML+OIL and that the 
semantics fails to capture it properly. Is that a fair assumption, 
and if so, can you give us any more details of what this other notion 
of inference might be, or how we can determine what inferences should 
be sanctioned by a correct MT that are not sanctioned by the current 
MT?

Pat
Received on Monday, 20 May 2002 10:54:58 GMT

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