- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:45:00 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
- Cc: dieter@cs.vu.nl
"The differences in RDF and WOL entailment is a brilliant feature" I recall many discussions on how to deal with modeling information in a logical framework. Lets take a simple example. A statement like (1) a & b should be treaded completely equal to a statement (2) b & a at a logical level. However, at a modeling level you may want to know whether a person wrote (1) or (2) because it may reflect the fact that b is more "important" to him. A more real-life example is whether a person define - a relation "r" as an attribute of a class "c" or - as a global property "r" with "c" as its domain. Logically they are the same but from a modeling point of view they are quite different. By having two types of entailments we can capture this without running into any problems. With syntactical RDF reasoning we can ask for different syntactical styles of an Ontology and with semantic WOL reasoning we infer logical consequences of an Ontology. This view point would also allow us to deal with different modeling paradigms people are asking for. Many emails and papers were asking for the frame-based syntax of OIL that disappeared in DAML+OIL (i.e., OIL was a web-based modeling language whereas DAML+OIL is "just" a web-based logic). We could just define a frame syntax for WOL in RDF making sure that it behaves the same as the non-frame version at the logical level but behaves different at the syntactical level, i.e., in the frame version you could ask whether something is explicitly defined as an attribute or as a property. In a nutshell, I think it is a brilliant feature having a reasoning level that reasons "non"-logically but syntactically over an WOL Ontology. It is the layer that allows us to capture, infer, and query modeling information. Therefore, this type of information no longer needs to be messed up with the logical layer, where indeed you do not want to care about the different syntax of logically equivalent statements. So I would strongly vote for encoding WOL as closely as possible in RDF and taking the differences in entailment as a beautiful gift. Dieter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Fensel Division of Mathematics & Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL The Netherlands Tel. (mobil): +31-(0)6-51850619, Fax and Answering machine: +31-(0)84-872 27 22 Email: dieter@cs.vu.nl ICQ #132755538 http://www.google.com/search?q=dieter or http://www.fensel.com Privat: Liendenhof 64, NL-1108 HB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31-(0)20-365 52 60. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 09:45:41 UTC