Re: Survey on titles for OWL2 Semantics documents

Ah! So the remark could be translated as 'there is nothing DL specific
in it'. Right? This makes sense...


Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2008, at 16:03, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Can somebody (eg, Uli:-) explain what is meant by the remark:
>> "DL Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics" (But Uli says it's not DL.)
>> I know she said that on the call, but I did not really grasp that at the
>> time either...
> Let me hazard a guess and test my understanding.
> The RDF-Based semantics are worth calling such because they depart
> significantly from standard first order logic style model theory. (Yes,
> it's first order, but it is definitely not Ye Old Principa Model
> Theory.) Whereas the "DL semantics" are just regular old first order
> semantics. (Really more propositional modalish in presentation, but in
> the structures it's plain old normal semantics).
> Someone coming to the documents with a model theory background is in for
> far far far less of a shock (if any) when confronting the "DL"
> semantics. Indeed, it would be confusing because it would suggest
> something DLish about them. The name "RDF-Based" does the right thing by
> signaling that there *is* something different and giving a cue where to go.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 15:30:14 UTC