- 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
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 Precisely. peter
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 16:13:56 UTC