Re: summary of current position with respect to semantics proposals (was Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: summary of current position with respect to semantics proposals 		(was Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon)
Date: 14 Aug 2002 14:29:29 -0500

> On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 13:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> >  When syntax is in the domain of
> > discourse the above entailments require comprehension principles which lead
> > to paradoxes when the formalism has sufficient expressive power.
> 
> So it seems.

In the presence of the standard entailments for restrictions which part of
the development of the paradoxes do you contest?

> >  OWL has
> > sufficient expressive power for this purpose, e.g., see [4].
> 
> That argument asserts the conclusion. I suggest that OWL should not
> have sufficient expressive power for this purpose.

Do you contest that OWL, as currently presented in the Working Draft
documents created by the Working Group, has sufficient expressive power to
express restrictions that can give rise to paradoxes?

[...]

peter

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 23:38:39 UTC