- From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:46:14 +0100
- To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1137062774.8809.19.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 21:39 +0100, Enrico Franconi wrote: > On 4 Jan 2006, at 08:59, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > >> What is a "superset approach"? Is it really true that "There are > >> several nonmonotonic logics which are candidates for such a > >> formalism, such as circumscription, autoepistemic logic and default > >> logic"? Can you encode DL's in such logics? Well, yes - if you really > >> mean a superset of FOL with non-mon operators; but does it really > >> make sense to say that? In the "black box approach", as you mean it, > > > > Yes, a superset of FOL was meant here. This approach probably doesn't > > make sense in a practical setting, but it is a possible approach. > > I am not really sure that such a superset of FOL (capturing both the > LP aspects and the DL aspects) exists and/or has been studied. > Although we can not exclude that such a beast exists, it has unknown > properties and therefore I would not even mention this possibility. I am also not promoting this approach. My intention was to point out this possibility and then conclude that this is not in the scope of this WG. > > >> it is *not* true that "OWL DL and the LP rules are viewed as black > >> boxes which exchange only ground facts". Please, first study Rosati's > >> and Eiter's works before stating these things. Moreover, the > >> statement: "Second, the existential consequences cannot be reused, > >> since it is not possible to deal with existential information in LP > >> rules", is false. > > > > I actually defined the black box approach there, and I defined that > > the > > OWL DL ontology and the LP rule base are viewed as black boxes which > > exchange ground fact. Perhaps this approach needs to be refined, > > but I'm > > not sure. > > I'm not yet aware of Rosati's approach, but his paper is on my stack. > > As far as I understood Eiter et al's approach, it works exactly as > > described here. One can include queries to a DL ontology in the > > body of > > LP rules; it is also possible to specify which facts needs to be added > > to the DL ontology before executing the query. > > Things are more complex than this, and several different incompatible > options are available. First of all, you are neglecting all the FOL- > based approaches (e.g., SWRL, Carin, etc). If we stay in what you > call LP semantics for rules, then the interaction between rules and > the ontology would be better characterised by looking at how the > models of the rules and the models of the ontology do interact, > rather that by having ground facts exchanges. Agreed. > > Wrt. the existential information: the semantics of LP rules is > > based on > > Herbrand models, which means (among other things) that every > > individual > > in the universe is represented with a name in the language. This makes > > it impossible to truly capture existential information. > > I disagree. For example, In Rosati's approach non-distinguished > varibales (i.e., existentials) are not restricted to the herbrand > universe. BTW all the use cases in Managing Incomplete Information > <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/ > Managing_incomplete_information> would be correctly handled by > Rosati's approach. Rosati uses the standard names assumption, which excludes considering unnamed individuals, thus, certain kinds of existential knowledge cannot be captured in his approach. If you have a name for the individual, then you can certainly deal with it in the logic program. However, if we would take the following example: take the following first-order sentence: \exists x. p(x) and the following rule: r <- p(x) One cannot conclude r, because there is no name a such that p(a). Best, Jos -- Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ +43 512 507 6475 jos.debruijn@deri.org DERI http://www.deri.org/ ---------------------------------------------- If a cluttered desk is the sign of a cluttered mind, what is the significance of a clean desk? - Laurence J. Peter
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2006 10:45:58 UTC