- From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:06:21 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- CC: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, dreer@fh-furtwangen.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Jun 22, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jim Hendler wrote: >> >>> Jos- >>> that's not quite right as I understand it - to use an example from >>> the >> >> paper I cited - >> >>> >>> Given an ontology containing only a single RDF triple: >>> <#pat> <#knows> <#jo>. >>> the answer to a query asking if pat knows exactly one person would be >> >> "no" under >> >>> RDF's open world semantics, but "yes" under the closed world >>> semantics >> >> of Datalog. >> >>> >>> there's no negation explicit here. >> >> >> If you would write down the query you mentioned, you would see that >> the query includes negation. > > [snip] > > That's the point, right? Queries that you might expect to return the > same results on that data *don't* depending on the semantics you > have for the *data*. Of course your query language might be (will > be!) more expressive than your data language (see SQL). No! As I showed in an earlier email, the ground entailments for both semantics are *equivalent* and thus the queries would return the same result. Best, Jos > > So the question is how to make this work. Are we already in the land > of multiple extensions (in the default theory sense)? One hopes not. > > One reason to be less shy of, e.g., NAF in query languages rather > than in the data is that the author of the query is most likely the > person evaluating the query, so its context is rather clearer. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > > - -- Jos de Bruijn, http://www.uibk.ac.at/~c703239/ +43 512 507 6475 jos.debruijn@deri.org DERI http://www.deri.org/ - ---------------------------------------------- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert Einstein -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCuaic4lqeiwiiHN4RAjYGAKCznqD9I7nHEBMRq/UvhcWiwJmd8gCfan5k dToe8icM4tLNmUDL0ojCF5s= =u9u4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 18:06:38 UTC