- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:34:06 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- 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? Ah, OK, I didnt follow that part. >The above argument says that you need to separate >the properties in order to keep the domains separate. Right. 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 Thursday, 18 April 2002 11:34:12 UTC