- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:22:00 -0500
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: more on the relationship between RDF and DAML+OIL Date: 12 Dec 2001 11:21:21 -0600 > On Wed, 2001-12-12 at 06:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > Here is a more-formal discussion of the problems that would arise if > > DAML+OIL syntax was treated the same way that the RDF model theory treats > > RDF syntax. > > I'm not sure I understand this argument. Could you show how > it applies to the axiomatic semantics of DAML+OIL? > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > It doesn't apply to the axiomatic semantics for DAML+OIL because the axiomatic semantics does not work ``right'' with respect to RDF entailment. For example, in the axiomatic semantics John is Person . does not imply John is :_1 . :_1 complementOf :_2 . :_2 complementOf Person . The axiomatic semantics, instead, corresponds to the DAML+OIL model theory way of doing things. Even if you fixed the axiomatic semantics, assuming that this is possible, you don't get the same situation. In the kind of axiomatization that is used as the DAML+OIL axiomatization the only ``error'' condition that you get is an inconsistency in the first-order logic. This ``error'' condition is used for both semantic ill-formedness and inconsistency in the knowledge base so there is no way of telling which is the case in this style of axiomatization. peter
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 13:22:42 UTC