Re: P.S. Re: Model Theory

Amen to this:

On Thu, 2002-01-03 at 13:14, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> It might also be worth adding that in the early days of DAML+OIL the
> group wasted a lot of time discussing/arguing about the meaning of
> RDFS constructs, such as range and domain, whose semantics was (then)
> only informally specified. I would suggest that we don't want to
> repeat that mistake with OWL.
> 
> Moreover, formalising the semantics of range and domain made it clear
> to all concerned that the most obvious reading of the informal
> specification had unintended and undesirable consequences. The RDF WG
> has since fixed this problem, but they may never have known about it
> without the formalisation.
> 
> Ian

At the end of the day, we want a document that causes this
technology to get deployed. Experience (as noted above) has
convinced me that a model theory (and/or axiomatic semantics...
I'm still studying both approaches) is cost-effective
in persuit of that goal.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 15:52:32 UTC