Re: A way out of the "dark"

>There would be much to say, but I'll try to be quick instead, and directly
>provide a possible solution to the "dark triples / paradoxes" problem.
>In whatever OWL language we construct, we could simply add the following
>restriction on class expressions for the new OWL constructs:
>class names are all Qnames, but for those defined in RDF(S) and OWL

That sounds neat, but I don't understand what it means. What semantic 
difference does using a Qname make?? (Is this a variation on the idea 
of making some namespaces dark?)

>Pro's:
>+ makes things cleaner
>+ helps a lot implementations
>+ doesn't touch RDF, but only affects OWL

That would obviously be desirable if a way of doing it can be found.

Pat

>+ should get rid of all the problems we've had so far, and in fact
>   should make much easier to formally prove properties of the system,
>   like absence of paradoxes.
>
>Con's:
>- we lose reflection (so, eg, we won't be able to do an "OWL definition for
>OWL",
>   like RDFS, for example, does).
>   But well... who *really* cares, at least for version 1 :)?
>
>Now, some refinements:
>a) the restriction could of course be made more permissive
>b) to provide further extendability, we could in fact, for example, take out
>from
>    the class names all Qnames in http://www.w3.org/
>
>Thoughts?
>-M


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12:32:25 UTC