- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:54:11 +0100
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 22 Aug 2011, at 15:32, Enrico Franconi wrote: > I guess you forgot my favourite reference on Local CWA :-) > > Inanç Seylan, Enrico Franconi, Jos de Bruijn: Effective Query Rewriting with Ontologies over DBoxes. IJCAI 2009: 923-925. > http://ijcai.org/papers09/Papers/IJCAI09-157.pdf Ok, that causes me to reiterate my question (since I followed the Etzioni et al reference): What *isn't* "Local" CWA? Presumably, it's not about arbitrary non-monotonic features (i.e., specially must be CWAesque reasoning). Presumably it's stronger that merely combining OWA and CWA. (I.e., is the use of the K operator necessarily an instance of local CWA? Similarly with the use of neg?) It has to make an *assumption* right? So somehow be not specific to particular queries or axioms? Thus, DBoxes would be exactly such, as you specify a set of predicates which are closed and thus to which CWA can apply. (I expect you could encode it in most logics with the requisite nonmonotonic features.) Am I close? Is there a precise distinction? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 14:54:50 UTC