W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: OWL semantics

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:07:02 +0200
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF09D5E94C.1C43B4A1-ONC1256C17.00777573@agfa.be>


> It's pretty arbitrary whether you use the Hayes/Menzel indirection
> trick or the Fikes/McGuiness (PropertyValue ...) trick to relate
> RDF syntax to first order logic. The models are isomorphic.

we have no experience with the PropertyValue approach
but are trying having an explicit 'extension' mapping

> If people are getting confused by the Hayes/Menzel indirection
> trick, perhaps the LBase stuff is more important than I thought.

in one of Pat's recent messages I was very glad to learn that
First-order universes may contain classes and properties just as they
might contain numbers, astronomical objects, people or pieces of
cheese. What makes HOL higher-order is not that its universes contain
things like sets and properties, but that they are *al*l required to
contain *very large infinite numbers* of them, and these very strong
requirements on the HOL universes go beyond what can be axiomatized
in FOL. But its the cardinalities that make HO semantics 'higher',
not the nature of things in the universe.


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 18:07:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:33 UTC