- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:44:40 -0500
- To: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> Subject: defaults Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:06:24 +0100 > Peter, > > During the f2f you mentioned that some limited representation of > defaults could be possible in OWL. Could you elaborate on that? That would > be very helpful. > [...] > > Thanks, Guus There is a very common idiom, which I like to call ``input completion'', that works as follows. I'll use frame terminology to describe input completion for two reasons: 1/ the processing is much clearer in frame terminology, and 2/ I hope that not using RDF terminology will help prevent misunderstandings. An ``input completion'' directive is something like the normal value for slot S in class C is V You process the definition of an object O in the input stream. The next thing that you do is to see if O belongs to C. If it does not, then the directive does not apply. Then you check to see if O has a value for S. If it does, then the directive does not apply. If, however, O belongs to C and also does not have a value for S, then give it the value V for S. This value is not asserted by default, i.e., information discovered later can not override it. A coherent story for input completion is much harder to make for RDF, as RDF does not have definitions of objects, nor does it have ordered inputs. A coherent story for input completion is also difficult to make for description logics, and thus would be hard to make for OWL. peter
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 06:45:15 UTC