- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:23:43 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On April 8, Pat Hayes writes: > >On March 22, Jeremy Carroll writes: > >> > > >> > [1] > >> http://www-lti.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~clu/papers/archive/lutzdiss.pdf > >> > >> > >> > >> Ian, > >> > >> I don't think I have time to read 225 pages ... :( > >> > >> Is there a shorter version of the central argument? > > > >The key point is that without separation of properties, when you > >negate restriction classes, e.g., (hasClass age >=21) you get (toClass > >age (union <21 Thing)), which breaks the separation of the datatype > >and abstract domains which is itself required in order to allow > >datatype reasoning to be separated from class based reasoning. > > Wait. That seems circular. Isn't this supposed to be an argument for > why we need to separate datatype reasoning from class-based reasoning > in the first place? Suppose we just say that, OK, they are not > separated. Then the above argument says that if we have negation then > they are not separated. But we already knew that, right? The question I thought I was answering was, why separate properties as well as domains? The above argument says that you need to separate the properties in order to keep the domains separate. Ian > > Pat > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax > phayes@ai.uwf.edu > http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes >
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 18:26:29 UTC