- From: duanyucong <duanyucong@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:15:57 +0800
- To: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <SNT132-W59C658B04D505EDF0F5DD1D82B0@phx.gbl>
Dear all, I think that there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of CWA vs. OWA: It is because of that a discussion might be extended based on implicit understanding of the semantic possibilities of these two concepts. for the cases like "...Therefore facts not stored in the database and not derivable from the existing data are considered false in the CWA and unknown or possible in the OWA.... " ---http://www.dsc.ufcg.edu.br/~ulrich/Artigos/MITO SBBD97.pdf My argumentation: 1. in OWA, negation is not "considerated" at all. Or in another word, negation is not cognitively available in the mind, and subsequently not available in semantic expressions produced/organized in the mind. 2. if negation appearred in the background of OWA, it can not bear intended semantics at ontological/existance level. It will be a pure notation instead of a complete concept with both notation and intended semantic. Regards, Yucong
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 08:03:55 UTC