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

Re: semantics document revised

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:58:03 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b4db9b5832fa18f@[65.217.30.172]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

>From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Subject: Re: semantics document revised
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:39:34 -0500
>
>[...]
>
>>  I don't follow you. Of course, in general, they won't have a single
>>  common interpretation.  RDF doesn't have a single common
>>  interpretation, after all, so the interpretation of the RDFS
>>  vocabulary is going to change across interpretations.  Maybe in some
>>  of them there will be classes with more than 57 subclasses, in others
>>  there won't. Some RDFS graphs can be satisfied in very small
>>  interpretations.
>
>Let me rephrase my concern then.
>
>I am concerned that there is no Large OWL interpretation of the empty
>graph.  Remember, such a Large OWL interpretation has to consistently
>assign class extensions to things like the class of classes that have at
>most 57 superclsses.

Right. OK, how about if I construct a large OWL interpretation of the 
empty graph? That would be the required 'core structure' for all 
other interpretations in any case. I have to provide interpretations 
for the RDFS+OWL vocabularies, but nothing more. Bet you a glass of 
scrumpy I can do it?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 22:57:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT