Re: Why do you want to do that?

At 10:56 PM -0700 8/11/08, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>I finally got a few minutes to read OWL Guide 3.1.3
>I read that section as supporting my position.  The word "context" 
>is mentioned
>several times, with the implication that X ismem IndividualSet; in 
>one context,
>and X ismem ClassSet; in a different context.

Is that actually asserted anywhere? Please give a citation.

>
>But a problem arises because OWL doesn't have contexts.
>So, apparently, the OWL solution to mix all contexts together,
>and ASSUME that all the propositions are still true.

No. The OWL methodology, like that of virtually all modern logic, is 
to define a formal semantics for the notation, which then DETERMINES 
what is true and false. There are no assumptions anywhere. So there 
isn't a problem. And there are no contexts in OWL as it isn't a 
context-dependent language.

>
>To make this problem more apparent, we can specify the contexts
>
>    at view =  ind { X ismem IndividualSet; };

What does that mean? What is the semantics of your formalism? Because 
if you were to provide one, that would stop all the argument, by 
answering the question.

>    at view = cls { X ismem ClassSet; };
>
>The question is: what happens when we mix the two contexts together?

What DETERMINES what happens? How is consistency defined for your formal logic?

>
>Pat Hayes says
>    at view = mix { X ismem IndividualSet; X ismem ClassSet; };

No, I didn't say that, as I don't speak this language. I wrote in English.

Pat

>Dick McCullough says
>    at view = mix { not{X ismem IndividualSet;}; X ismem ClassSet; };
>
>
>Dick McCullough
>Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
>mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
>knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
>knowledge haspart proposition list;
>http://mKRmKE.org/
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
>To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:01 AM
>Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?
>
>>On Aug 8, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Over the last six years, I have suggested a number of
>>>"improvements" to the RDF language.  Not one of
>>>my suggestions was adopted.  Apparently,
>>>RDF is fine just the way is, thank you!
>>
>>Yep.  That doesn't imply opposition to improvements though;  some 
>>people think the way to provide the "improvements" they want is to 
>>define languages "on top of" RDF (like the OWL dialects) rather 
>>than  making those changes directly in RDF.  That way, your 
>>"improvement"  and my improvement can possibly co-exist more nicely 
>>:-)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I would now like to turn the tables, and ask
>>>why do you want to do that?
>>>I'll start with two features of RDF which seem to be popular.
>>>
>>>1. X  subClassOf  X;
>>>A neat mathematical property, right?
>>>But if you do the inferences, what it means is
>>>   X  sameAs  X;
>>>We already knew that.
>>>Why do you want to do that?
>>
>>I need some help with this question.  Do you think being able to 
>>say X subClassOf Y is OK?  If so, are you asking why RDFS (not RDF, 
>>BTW) doesn't explicitly forbid the special case of X subClassOf X? 
>>Why do  you want to do that (i.e., test for this special case all 
>>the time)?   Or are you asking why people *write* X subClassOf X?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>2. X  type  Y;  X  subClassOf  Z;
>>>Another neat property: X is an individual and a class.
>>>Now I can ... What?  I don't know.
>>>Why do you want to do that?
>>
>>How about the example in Section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide?
>>
>>--Frank


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 06:16:19 UTC