FW: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

Dear all,
 
I think that there is usually a misunderstanding on 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.  limited references : 

[1]     Yucong Duan, “A Dualism Based 
Semantics Formalization Mechanism for Model Driven Engineering”, IJSSCI 
Volume1(4), IGI press 2009, page 90-110. 

[2]     Yucong 
Duan, C. Cruz and C. Nicolle. “Propose Semantic Formalization for 3D 
Reconstruction of Architectural Objects”, IJCIS, 11(1), 2010, pp 1-10. 


[3]     Yucong Duan, C.Cruz. “Formalizing Semantic of 
Natural Language through Conceptualization from Existence”. IJIMT, V2(1), 
pp37-42. 

[4]     Yucong Duan, Christophe Cruz, Christophe 
Nicolle. “Identifying Objective True/False from Subjective Yes/No Semantic based 
on OWA and CWA”, ICSCT 2010 IEEE 
CS press, pp1-5. 

[5]     Yucong Duan. “Attaining and 
applying consistency from semantic evolved from conceptualization”, IC4E 2011, 
IEEE CS press , pp 353-359.