reasoning about documents/ontologies? [was: defaults]

Is anybody keeping an issues list? if so, please
add this to it...

On Tue, 2002-01-22 at 11:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> All that said, there will be a part of OWL that is not part of the logic
> underlying OWL, or, at least, that I hope will not be part of the logic
> underlying OWL.  This is precisely the part of OWL that deals with
> ontologies (or documents, or ...).  Yes, this part of OWL interacts with
> the logic underlying OWL, and, maybe, there could be a formal treatment of
> it, but it does not inhabit the same conceptual space as interpretations,
> models, and entailment.

My hope is in the opposite direction.

I intend/hope to use RDF, WebOnt, and related stuff to reason
about documents. in particular, about ontologies/schemas/specs.

I hope that we'll be able to use Semantic Web formalisms,
increasingly, to transcribe the content of web specifications...
maybe we'll even catch up to the point where web specs
are written in Semantic Web formalisms to start with.

For this reason, the idea that DAML+OIL classes can't
contain datatype values is extremely inconvenient,
and I hope it doesn't make its way into OWL/WebOnt.

For example, I'd like to be able to reason about
the class of names of W3C members, where
something is a W3C member iff it's listed
in (and RDF version of)
and something's the name of a W3C member
iff that RDF document says so.

I'd also like to reason about XML documents, HTTP
protocol messages, etc.

[sorry I'm not very clear in this message; I must
run to a telcon just now...]

> Such constructs (e.g., daml:imports) can indeed have impact on the
> behaviour of OWL implementations, of course, but this is generally in terms
> of determining what pieces of syntax are fed into an OWL reasoner, and
> definitely not in terms of affecting the OWL reasoner in any other way.
> It may turn out that there is a way of making some version of defaults fit
> into this part of OWL.  I expect that any such version of defaults will be
> a very weak (or very strong) version of something like input completion.
> peter
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 13:56:43 UTC