Re: OWL semantics ( with focus on an axiomatization)

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:

> From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
> Subject: Re: OWL semantics ( with focus on an axiomatization)
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:06:26 -0700
>
> [...]
>
> > After daml-ont was released it was clear that there were disagreements (among
> > committee members and the public) as to what terms meant.  Richard Fikes and I
> > agreed that we should write a more precise specification of the meaning of the
> > terms.
> > I suggested a denotational semantics.  Richard suggested that specification in KIF
> > might be useful to a significant segment of people.  We decided to go with
> > Richard's hypothesis and provide a KIF-based specification as the first
> > specification.  (as you all know of course there was also a model-theoretic
> > specification done later by Peter et al).
>
> Hmm.
>
> Although the model theory specifically developed for DAML+OIL may not have
> explicitly existed at the birth of DAML+OIL, I think that it is correct
> that the model theory for various versions of OIL, especially the model
> theory for Instance OIL (and related model theories for expressive DLs) is
> essentially a model theory for DAML+OIL.  Model theories for expressive DLs
> have been around for a while, predating any work on DAML-ONT.

yes - of course model theories for many dls were around long before daml-ont.

>
>
> [...]
>
> peter

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/index.html
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941

Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2002 16:52:14 UTC