- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 03 Jan 2002 14:52:35 -0600
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
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