- From: Turner, David <davidt@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:44:12 +0100
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk] > Sent: 14 August 2007 12:22 > > On 14 Aug 2007, at 11:52, Turner, David wrote: > > > I realise that this point has been elaborated on later in > this thread, > > but I wanted to express my general agreement with it anyway. > > Punning is > > rather different from what OWL Full does, > > I don't know what you mean by "rather different". For me, for > example, "rather different" suggests *incompatibility*. Roughly speaking, yes. A user well-versed in OWL-1.0 (DL or Full) coming across the example I gave might be surprised by its meaning in OWL-1.1. I realise that the model theories are compatible from a strictly mathematical POV, but surprising users by changing the meaning of already-defined syntax is likely to be painful. > Punning is, as far as I know, strictly weaker than Hilog or > OWL Full semantics. Right, but it was a design goal in 1.0 to have the DL semantics as close to the Full semantics as possible. Punning is a further divergence, because it's strictly weaker. AIUI a Hilog-like semantics would be closer to what Full does. > There are many graphs that are consistent in under simple > interpretations and inconsistent under RDFS semanatics. So > either this sort of being rather different is relatively > innocuous (at least ceteris paribus), or there's something > else that distinguishes them. The difference was the observation that it is desirable to have a close relationship between DL and Full semantics, unlike simple vs RDFS semantics. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Turner Cube T400, HP Labs Bristol, Filton Road, Bristol BS34 8QZ davidt@hp.com +44 117 3129104 (Work) +44 7962 811627 (Mobile) Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:44:28 UTC