W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: SEM: OWL Full semantics

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 00:11:40 +0200
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE257A53E.08FFA863-ONC1256D24.00792816-C1256D24.0079EE1D@agfa.be>

Pat, I better understand it now... Is
the latest state of the art?

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    pat hayes                                                                                          
                    <phayes@ai.uwf.edu       To:     Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA                        
                    >                        cc:     www-webont-wg@w3.org                                              
                    Sent by:                 Subject:     Re: SEM: OWL Full semantics                                  
                    2003-05-12 08:37                                                                                   

>Pat, in your message

>you wrote very sensible comments which I fully support.
>If I may suggest, put on your OWL S&AS editor's hat and
>put it those changes !-)

AS&S is a multi-document, and each part of it has a different editor
list. I only commented on the parts of the document where I am not
listed as editor, and they were intended as comments to the editors
of those sections.

>  Further on, as I have suggested
>many times, the OWL Full vocabulary extension of the
>RDFS semantics [RDFS MT] could be made explicit in the
>shape of corresponding entailment or inference rules
>which are sanctioned by those OWL Full semantics.

Yes, that could be done, if necessary as back-projections from the
translation into Lbase, though it would be rather complicated to get
a complete set of rules (and very complicated to prove it was
complete), and they would not all be simple "closure" rules in the
RDFS style.

>What I captured from many people in the community
>is that they are really interested in that and that
>it would drastically increase interoperability between
>OWL Full reasoners, verifiers and explainers. I also
>believe that this is a realistic job; even achieving
>a minimum set is much better than having nothing ;-)

Interesting idea.  However, I think this would be a different
document.  Obviously, if I had my druthers the entire AS&S document
would have been written in a different style, with OWL presented as
first an extension of RDFS (OWLFull, that is) then with a syntax
restriction to get OWLDL, and with the abstract syntax and
'conventional' model theory presented last, almost as an appendix.
But this was clearly a minority view among the trio of editors; Peter
and Ian had already done a great deal of work on the abstract syntax
when we worked out the RDF-compatible semantics, and Ian was not
fully convinced of the internal coherence of the RDF-style model
theory; so to have tried to force my own ideas on the group would
have led to endless in-fighting, and Peter has done a very nice job
within the current style, so I don't think it is worth trying to
rewrite the whole thing. I would just like to clarify the
relationship of the various OWLs to RDF in the wording of the text
here and there, is all.

It might be worth trying to write an entirely different document in
the style you suggest, by the way, a kind of integrated
semantic/inference-rule account of all the W3C SW languages.  But if
any of us suggest that this be done by Webont, Guus will turn purple.


IHMC                                      (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.                      (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                                           (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501                                       (850)291 0667   cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu                   http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 18:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:53 UTC