- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 Jun 2002 20:27:01 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 19:42, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > > 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? yeah, or prolog or Java or whatever, no? I'm not talking about the way it's specified; just one implementation technique. [...] > > 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. the ones I'm concerned about have the quantifier, not just the variable, in the conclusion. > What should happen > to these axioms? I'll have to look over the details, but basically, I think they should be removed. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 21:26:34 UTC