- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:14:23 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
pat hayes wrote: > > The upshot would be that A no longer could be > taken to warrant all the inferences that follow from B's use of P. > This is fine as long as everyone else can check whether a conclusion > is warranted according to a particular source. As a third party who > wants to refer to and use the P-concept, I can decide whether to > point to A or to B, and depending which I choose, I'll be accepting > different 'versions' of P (which will have different URI's, so will > have different names in RDF/DAML.) > This is actually very close to the way we do things in SHOE right now. Any source can commit to the ontology of its choice, thus saying that it agrees with any conclusions that logically follow from its statements and the rules in the ontology. We then have the notion that agents are free to pick which ontologies they use to interpret a source, and depending on the differences between these two ontologies they may get the intended meaning or an alternate one. The nature of the SHOE language allows us to prove some results about ontology differences that preserve the intended meaning. Jeff
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 16:14:25 UTC