W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2001

Re: What do the ontologists want

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:12:42 -0400
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010522161242D.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: What do the ontologists want
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:04:29 -0400

> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> Actually, what wasn't clear to me was what you meant by the "semantics
> for the positive ground triples" in the original message, but your
> mentioning negation in the above caused a light to go on (I think). 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but an example of the problem would be that
> you've decided to add something like a NOT relation and have it mean
> that certain domain triples (which you also provide in the same "place"
> and which you reference in instances of the NOT relation) are not true. 
> A processor that understands the NOT "language" of course does the
> appropriate thing, but an ordinary RDF processor sees what it thinks are
> asserted domain triples, doesn't understand what NOT means, and gets a
> meaning opposite to what is meant.  That is, the "semantics for the
> positive ground triples" is that they are asserted (ignoring a bunch of
> stuff about the context in which they are asserted, which needs some
> clearing up too).  
> --Frank


Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 16:13:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:38 UTC