- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 18:39:19 -0400
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs) Date: 07 Jun 2002 16:56:42 -0500 > > On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 16:46, Jos De_Roo wrote: > [...] > > > i.e. there shouldn't be any axioms with existentials in > > > the conclusions. (there's a name for that fragment of FOL, no? > > > is that horn clauses? I often forget). > > > > All I remember for the moment is "Clause Normal Form" > > and indeed no existentials in the conclusions > > but functional terms could be there I think... > > Functional terms and existentials buy you the > same power/grief. > > For OWL 1.0, I (presently) think we should stop > short of that sort of thing. > Stop short of what? Functional terms? Has anyone proposed functional terms? Existentials? RDF has a form of existential. Are you proposing that OWL not include blank nodes? [...] > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > peter
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 18:39:28 UTC