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

Re: REQDOC: New Draft

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:18:37 +0100
Message-ID: <3C7E03FD.D5C1E928@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
CC: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Jef Heflin wrote:
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
> > 
> > Here are some comments on the revised text.
> > 
> > 0. The term "definition" is often used to refer to statements in an
> > ontology, e.g., in 3.1 "to provide additional definitions", in
> > 5.Commitment to ontologies "which set of definitions", 5. Class
> > definition primitives, etc. Are we suggesting that all statements in
> > an ontology are "definitions". What about statements of the form
> > sameClassAs C1 C2, where neither C1 nor C2 is a class name? I think
> > that each use of "definition" should be examined and, in most cases,
> > changed to something more neutral such as "axiom" or "statement".
> I can understand your objection to word "definition." I think
> "statement" would be too vague. "Axiom" is a possibility, but I fear
> that there might be a number of readers who don't have the background in
> logic to understand what we mean here. Can someone suggest a better
> term?

I have struggled with this before. "Definition" seems to be natural term
for people to use, but in KR/DL it has a specific meaning, which covers
only a subset. The only solution I have come up with is to use the term
"definition" in the introduction, but including a note that states
explictly the intended sloppy meaning of the term. 


A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15
NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 
Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 05:16:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:27 UTC