- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:08:05 -0400
- To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
At 17:33 +0200 8/23/05, Dieter Fensel wrote: >Dear Jim, > >I think we agree here. Neither so-called open world assumption or so-called >closed world assumption scale on a world wide scale when taken naively. >OWL-and its so-called open world assumption brakes on world wide scale >since simply inhering artificial equalities whenever a new fact is >met somewhere >on the web that interacts with some (value or cardinality) restrictions. This >is roughly as reticules as to infer the truth of negated knowledge under NAF >simply because your crawler failed to find the positive fact. Inference on >the web whether it is called open or closed world needs the notion of scope. > >And I agree, if I had worked in their marketing department I would have >neither called it CLOSED world nor negation as FAILURE. Scoped negation >and explicit contextualization sound much nicer. > > -- dieter Well, I think you're wrong on the OWL thing you mention there - shows a misunderstanding of the open nature of OWL - but that's okay because I don't see this list as needing to be used for that discussion (I was under the impression, despite most of the recent email, that our goal was discussin a WG charter, not doing research) -- I think you and I are in agreement about the goals now, and I think the idea of referring to things in the charter as "Scoped negation and explicit contextualization" makes sense -- Professor James Hendler Director Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery 301-405-2696 UMIACS, Univ of Maryland 301-314-9734 (Fax) College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/~hendler
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 14:08:19 UTC