- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:10:49 +0100
- To: "'Ginsberg, Allen'" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > Not being "consistent with classical semantics" doesn't mean > > much for what we are trying to do. No important computational > > formalism I'm aware of is "consistent with classical semantics". > > What about common logic? OWL-DL people will probably tell you that it is not consistent with classical semantics :-) (since it includes some unorthodox extensions) It's also not really a computational formalism, at least I don't know any form of implementation of it. However, if we would manage to modify it towards a notion of preferred/intended model (by relaxing its classical bivalence principle, i.e. allowing partial models instead of just total models) CL may become an interesting basis for RIF. -Gerd
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 12:11:06 UTC