- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:10:42 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 22 Sep 2008, at 12:58, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> 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 > > I'm baffled by this. > > I'm pretty sure they are not the semantics of full first-order logic. > no, but the basic idea and structure is the same. > And they are the semantics of OWL DL, which I understand is a > description logic (DL) language. (As the W3C Recommendation on the > subject says, "OWL DL is so named due to its correspondence with > description logics".) > > So that makes them very DL specific. > > What have I got wrong about this? > DLs are (well-behaved) fragments of first order predicate logic, and they have "the same" semantics. So, if I knew something about FOL, then i should be able to understand the semantics -- even if i had never heard about DLs since there is nothing "DL specific" in them. > Maybe you're parsing the phrase "DL Semantics" in parallel to like > "Model-Theoretic Semantics", as if the term "DL" is indicating how the > semantics are specified? yes - and it might sound like 'exotic semantics' to some where, in fact, it's straightforward first order semantics. > That would explain your comments, I suppose. > Or you think other people will parse it that way? To mean "DL > Semantics" is just a less clumsy way of saying "Semantics of the OWL > DL > family of languages", and as such it seems like the perfect name. > indeed, I would be afraid that people would *not* read it like this but as in "semantics for which you need to know DLs and which doesn't fit into anything but DLs", which I wouldn't like. Cheers, Uli > I note that the phrase "DL Semantics" is often used in our meetings > (Google doesn't index our minutes very well, but it finds occurances > in > 63 documents) and I don't think I've heard anyone complain about this > usage. Maybe soemthing in the intonation of "DL" makes it more clear. > > (Meanwhile, we have a real problem here. We have at least two No > votes > to every title. If we mean "No" like "formal objection" (which is > how I > meant it - but the survey isn't clear about this), then we're not > going > to be able to publish until we make some serious headway on this.) > > (Re: comments about "Yes, and prefer not" -- that's a way of saying > you > don't like this option, but you don't actually believe it would do > serious harm to OWL to go with it -- ie, you're not going to formally > object.) > > -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 13:10:35 UTC