RE: ISSUE-3 and RDF simple entailment

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure I understand your comment.  Are you saying that OWL already does not claim to satisfy the monotonicity requirement of RDF semantics, and therefore OWL 1.1 DL also does not need to satisfy it?

The normative OWL semantics document begins by saying:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5
"This model-theoretic semantics for OWL is an extension of the semantics defined in the RDF semantics [RDF Semantics], and defines the OWL semantic extension of RDF."


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.


> From: Michael Schneider [mailto:schneid@fzi.de]
>
> Jeremy Carroll wrote on Friday, February 29, 2008:
>
> >One question that came up in HP discussion was whether the proposed
> >resolution to ISSUE-3 would break the monotonicity requirement for
> >semantic extensions
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#MonSemExt
> >
> >I suggested that the proposal does break this requirement.
>
> AFAICT, this topic is only relevant for languages which claim
> to be "semantic extentions" as defined by [10].
> In this way,
> RDF semantics is a semantic extention to Simple Entailment,
> RDFS to RDF, and both OWL-1.0-Full and pD* are semantic
> extentions to RDFS. This is the "layered" approach which I
> described in [20]. In fact, the "delta to OWL-1.0-Full idea",
> which we discussed in an earlier telco, would mean that
> OWL-1.1-Full is becoming a semantic extention to OWL-1.0-Full.
>
> But neither OWL-1.0-DL nor OWL-1.1-DL claim to be such a kind
> of semantic extention to RDFS. So you cannot reasonably apply
> the "General monotonicity lemma" from the RDF(S) semantics spec
> to them, where you have to "Suppose that Y indicates a semantic
> extension of X".
> [ . . . ]

Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 04:27:05 UTC