Re: Survey on titles for OWL2 Semantics documents

On 19 Sep 2008, at 16:29, Ivan Herman wrote:

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

indeed, this is what I tried to say, cheers, Uli

> Ivan
> 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
> Home:
> PGP Key:

Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 10:10:45 UTC