- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:30:56 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. " Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On August 14, Dan Connolly writes: [snip] > > Entailment 1: > > John in the intersection of Student and Employee > > entails > > John in the intersection of Employee and Student [snip] > > We feel that any formalism that does not support entailments like 1 > > and 2 would manifestly fail to promote interoperability and to support > > the development of "applications that depend on an understanding of > > logical content" [3]. > > Folks should keep in mind that while entailment 1 doesn't work, > this analog does: > > John in the intersection of Student and Employee > C is the intersection of Employee and Student > entails > John is in C. > > and this analog is what you acutally need to deal with the > case where one ontology gives the intersection in one > order and the other does it the other way. Ontology interoperability covers (or, at least, should cover) much more than the above. Among other things, it covers interactions between a client and a server, as follows Client: "I would like to by some furniture that is English" Server: "Sorry, can't help you - we only have English furniture" Useful, or what? Ian
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 08:33:21 UTC