- From: Natasha Noy <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:44:28 -0700
- To: <john.madden@duke.edu>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
John, Thank you for the additional point - we will put a disclaimer along those lines in the next edition. Natasha On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:33 PM, John Madden wrote: > > Natasha, > > Thanks for your helpful responses ! > > One follow-up on the Pattern 1 discussion point (about not > inadvertantly > suggesting probability concepts are tractable in standard OWL/RDF). > > You make a great point: > > > > > >> I am >> afraid that the idea of using speed won't much less controversial >> than probability in some quarters :) One may interpret this as some >> suggestion on representing temporal information, and of course we >> don't want to do this in this note. I hope that the disclaimer that >> we are *not* trying to make any suggestions on how to represent >> probabilistic information, would be an acceptable compromise. >> >> >> >> > > I suppose this highlights a more general point: Pattern 1 lends > itself to > asserting all kinds of "How" semantics. But many kinds of "How" > semantics > are formally representable only using expressive modal logics, and > OWL is > not equivalent to an expressive modal logic. > > So maybe a footnote should just make the broad point that while > Pattern 1 > invites representing all kinds of "How" assertions, users should > bear in > mind that for many of these--like those involving time, probablility, > belief, obligation, etc.-to actually reason validly by machine is a > fundamentally complex task, that in many cases is inherently > intractable > using current formalisms, including OWL DL. > > John > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 13:44:38 UTC