- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:35:54 +0000
- To: ross.horne@gmail.com, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On 23/02/2016 09:24, Ross Horne wrote: > My follow up question is: whether anyone knows whether the more > accommodating inference, as implied by Bioportal, was ever discussed during > the RDFS standardisation process; and if so, why the more restrictive > definition for multiple domains and ranges was chosen. > > I suspect this question has a simple explanation in model theory, which is > why I also copy Pat. > I recall this was discussed in the 2000-2004 RDF working group, or at least among some members of the working group at that time. A concern here is for logical monotonicity - the introduction of new knowledge cannot invalidate existing knowledge, otherwise how can one know for sure that anything you think you know is actually true in a context that invokes open-world semantics? There are alternative models (e.g. default reasoning), but in order to draw firm confusions they require assuming that one has a complete set of assertions (i.e. no more can be added). Also from the 2000-2004 RDF working group (which ran in parallel with the first OWL working group), the RDF list construct (aka rdf:parseType="Collection") was introduced so that (among other things) OWL could make closed assertions, such as owl:unionOf (see https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#SetOperators). #g --
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 10:36:26 UTC