- From: Stefan Decker <stefan@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:44:30 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
At 01:02 PM 11/18/2003, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: Stefan Decker <stefan@ISI.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Rules WG -- draft charter -- NAF
>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:15:47 +0000
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > as far as I understand the discussion there are different issues:
> >
> > 1) Reasoning with the Closed World Assumption on a given graph
> > 2) Naming a given graph.
> > 3) Collecting (or completing) a graph (data transclusion)
> >
> > I think we all agree that doing 1) is easy.
>
>[...]
>
>Not so fast. What if it is difficult to determine just what objects
>(belonging to a particular class) exist? Then what does closing (a class)
>mean?
Free your mind! (from semantics ;-).
I was talking about the graph - not the semantics.
Closed World applied to Description Logic is a different story.
Best,
Stefan
>peter
--
http://www.isi.edu/~stefan
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 08:44:39 UTC