- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:25:32 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> On 22 Sep 2008, at 16:19, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
> >
> >> I know people coming from a first order background who generally read
> >> too much into the "DL" when people say "DL Semantics". Indeed, I've
> >> (and many others) have wasted a lot of time trying to get people to
> >> believe that the semantics of a DL is just normal first order
> >> semantics.
> >
> > Okay, I guess I'll have to take your word for that.
>
> Really? is there a problem with taking my word about my own
> experience? Interesting.
I'm sorry if my words came across as distrustful; it was simply that I
had some difficulty reconciling your experience with my own. In my
experience, people use the term "DL Semantics" quite comfortably. So
when you disagreed, I had some real dissonance, which took a while to
sort out. The reality, I'm sure, is that you're talking to different
people and in a different context -- I rarely talk to people who have a
clue what model theory is, unless they are in this WG, so of course we'd
have different experiences here.
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 16:27:39 UTC