- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:14:09 -0700
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Guys, I promised to have a revised OWL/RDF document ready by last night, but it will be slightly delayed. I hope to have it done by EOB today. Sorry about that. Quick response to all the counterxamples: Yes, Peter is quite right that those entailments do not go through with the MT in my earlier document. However it is possible to tweak the MT so that they do. The key is to make sure that all interpretations contain all the required classes inside owl:Class, and the way to do that is to adapt the trick I used for the sequences, which is to define the interpretation using the owl deductive closure (Essentially the same trick that Herbrand used, for those of you who know the FOL completeness theorem). The upshot of all this is that OWL/RDF is rather more complicated than I thought it had to be; that the OWL/RDF closure rules are horrendously complicated; and that it is just about impossible to describe OWL/RDF without reference to the abstract syntax. Nevertheless, it does seem to give a genuine layering, ie there is no need to darken anything and OWL/RDF turns out to be a genuine semantic extension of RDFS. So the primary question is, I would suggest, not whether this is possible, but whether the complexity of the OWL-to-RDFS embedding is worth it. Anyway, full details should be available later today (PT, that is.) Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tuesday, 27 August 2002 13:15:01 UTC