RE: A solution to integrate CWA into OWA.

Dear Bijan, You know that i will agree with you when you say what have expressed is not conform to semantics of OWL specifications.I would assume that when you said so, you are an authority. However i can not understand whether so many judgement expressed by you to a student such as "Gibberish", "silly",...etc are still based on specification of OWL specification? Or some other AI specifications? BTW: I am learning OWL. So please expect that i will make mistakes and have questions:-) 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.