- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:42:18 -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 18:51:01 -0500 > On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 17:39, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > 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? > > er... Jos mentioned them... > > > > but functional terms could be there I think... > > > > Existentials? RDF has a form of existential. Are you proposing > > that OWL not include blank nodes? > > No, I'm proposing that, when OWL semantics are > expressed as N3 rules Are you seriously proposing that the semantics of a formalism be expressed in N3? This is like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. > or FOL axioms, which usually look like > (forall (?x ?y ?z) (if PREMISE CONCLUSION)) Well some FOL statements look like this, but not all, nor even most. > that the conclusion shouldn't have any > functional terms nor existentially quantified > variables. > i.e. there are no axioms that conclude "there exists...". Well there are several axioms in the DAML+OIL axiomatization that have existentially quantified variables in the conclusion. What should happen to these axioms? > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > peter
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 20:42:28 UTC