- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 23:37:37 -0600
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>In the current semantics draft, OWL Lite just gets the same semantics as OWL >DL on the syntactic subset. >It would be possible in our one-dimensional layering to give OWL Lite a >reduced semantics. > >This has the following advantages: >- clearly differentiation between the two >- much easier to implement OWL Lite so it really becomes an entry level Not obvious to me it makes it easier to implement, and it has the severe disadvantage of multiplying semantic theories. Seems to me that as far as semantics is concerned, the fewer distinctions we have the better all round. Having clear differentiation at this level is exactly what we want to avoid, unless there are *very* good reasons for it. The whole Lbase integration effort is aimed at eliminating semantic differences like this. (If I had my druthers I would give up on the extensional model theory for OWL-DL; its only there to make some theoreticians feel better, it plays no actual useful role, and at some time its going to start making problems for future layering efforts. But that's just a comment, Im not trying to rock the boat.) >I attach a modified version of section 5 of the semantics doc that changes a >few iffs to if-then's, and drops comprehension. > >As far as I can tell, teh vast majority of the entailments discussed in the >feature synopsis under OWL Lite are preserved, at much easier >implementability. I reserve judgement on that, but would be interested in seeing an argument for why it would be. If it supports the same entailments then I don't see how it can possibly be simpler to implement; and if it doesn't, then its defining a different language. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 00:37:48 UTC