- From: Swanson, Tim <tim.swanson@semanticarts.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:28:25 -0600
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Matt Williams" <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Bijan, Thanks again. I think you're right, the misunderstanding goes back to talking at cross-purposes. I have just one more question. > > > (Admittedly, this is not the same thing as "directly" checking for > the > > negative entailment, since it relies on the user's understanding of > > OWL > > semantics to make the jump from membership in the above class to the > > negative entailment.) > > It's not a negative entailment (which for me means a *failure* to > entail) but an entailment of a negation, but yes. For Matt's purpose > this might be fine. OWL 1.1 statement entailment shall be added to > Pellet in due course (esp to support SPARQL). One could, of course, > write such a wrapper. > "negative entailment" = "failure to entail" (i.e. still unknown in the open world) "entailment of a negation" = "entailing that something is untrue" (i.e. known to be false) Is this the accepted language? (If so, I need to re-write some of our in-house documents to comply with it.) > Hope this helps. > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:25:55 UTC