RE: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

Dear Bijan, Thanks for your reply. You are right that my expression am not based on OWL semantics but i am learning including through these discussions.Thank you. I do not seen any confliction with our disscussion on the content. I only  see that what you have expressed geting clear to me.If the cost is at the expense of insulted by you. I do not mind since that i am learning from you for standards of OWL :-)Thanks for W3C to provide such an open platform to acess experts like you. It is a little bit funny only in the sense that you see so many Negations and Vagueness in my (a learner) expressions at the same time:-)How could any semantics be negative and vague at the same time if i did not misunderstand. Sincerely, Yucong    From: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:12:31 +0100
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: duanyucong@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.



On 19 Aug 2011, at 12:58, duanyucong wrote:Dear  Bijan, 
 
Your words can not be insult to me, since that i am not in content of the discussion.

Great.
It is the topic which draws our argumentations.
So please feel free to expresss anything valueable directly but not necessary to be too emotional :-)

Fair enough, but let me reiterate that thus far I do not consider us to be in an interesting dispute. I consider what you've written to be so far wrong as to not be a matter of dispute.
An exception, i am ok with your critisim on my ugly english:-(
 
in your example, "C & ~C => owl:Nothing".
 
my argumentation is that there might be more possibilities which might not be stopped from extending from  "C & ~C => "
e.g. 
 
(1)C & ~C => either C or ~C is incorrect. 
(2)C & ~C => the expression might  not be a correct expression to express a consistent semantics.

What I wrote is a theorem in OWL (ok, using my own funky notation :)). It clearly makes use of negation. It has a standard FOL translation. Etc. etc. It clearly involves open world semantics.
What you wrote is not part of the formal semantics of OWL, and your (1) isn't even a correct reading of the pragmatics (at least in most cases). C and ~C are contraries (i.e., complementary , obviously, by the semantics. Explicit contraries of this sort are generally contradictories. Which is all that this says.
(2) is just silly, yes? It's not a "might" not be consistent (satisfiable), it *is* not satisfiable.

what i have presented in the previous email is intended based on distinguishment on the levels of  "concept" and "notations of concept" vs. "semantics of concepts".

Gibberish.
The argumentations in previous email refers to at semantic level mainly.

Not the formal semantics level, which is where most of these discussions take place.
I will provide more details later.

I strongly suggest not!
Cheers,Bijan.