semantic extension

Pat,


In your draft, you define semantic extension a bit differently from RDF 
2004. In RDF 2004, the definition was such that OWL DL was a semantic 
extension of RDF by allowing extensions to make syntactic restrictions 
on graphs. This is not the case anymore.

It makes the new definition cleaner, but then one may wonder what is the 
status of OWL DL. If we want to have:

"if A simply entails B then A must also entail B under any extended 
notion of entailment"

then OWL DL is not a semantic extension and somehow violate the conditions.

So, I'm wondering: does it matter? do we go back to the text in 2004? or 
do we simply add a note that says that, of course, A and B in the 
sentence above must be in the language of the extension, otherwise A 
entails B under that semantic extension does not even mean anything.


Best,
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 15:20:56 UTC