W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Survey on titles for OWL2 Semantics documents

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:52:17 +0100
Message-Id: <C2806A65-4F92-418D-B736-1C4FC457EDED@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On 22 Sep 2008, at 17:25, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> 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.

No worries. I was just confused about what the issue was :)

>   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.

Yep. It's really when dealing with folks who know FOL but *don't know  
DLs*. They see the class/object stuff and the "ontology" and think  
they are dealing with FrameLand.

People with some familiarity with DLs already know that SHROIQ is a  
fragment of FOL.

Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 16:49:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:52 UTC