Re: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals

It's fun listening to you logicians talk, but can someone give us a  
hint  for the hackers among us?  In particular, can someone give us a  
use case (not with p's and q's but with some intuitively obvious real  
world case) that explains what the issue is, and more importantly,  
what the different positions in this discussion would entail?  How  
would a skolem constant be used in an RDF document (or an anonymous  
individual for that matter) - does this relate to bnodes or something  
else?
  thanks
  JH




On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Carsten Lutz wrote:

>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr wrote:
>>
>>> But *do* allow it in existential and universal restrictions.
>>
>> Sorry but I don't see where the definition differentiates between
>> SROIQ-QCR-concepts and SROIQ-valua/existential-concepts.
>>
>> For example, I don't see how the current algorithm could classify
>> {a:\not \exists uprop.Self} as inconsistent.
>
> I would have to look into the algorithm. Maybe Uli can comment on  
> this.
> On the other hand, I don't care too much about this point. We are not
> formalizing this algorithm, we are designing OWL 1.1. And whether  
> or not
> it is in that particular algorithm, I keep up my claim that it is  
> technically not difficult. We should rather discuss whether we think
> it is useful enough to be included. I do.
>
> greetings,
> 		Carsten
>
> --
> *      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU  
> Dresden       *
> *     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu- 
> dresden.de     *
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 15:17:47 UTC