- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:52:17 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@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. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 22 September 2008 16:49:45 UTC