- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:12:26 -0600
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
This has now been fixed. Check the new wording to see if you approve. What would be a good **simple small** example from OWL-DL to illustrate this? Pat On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > 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/ > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 18:12:54 UTC