- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:29:20 -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 20:27:01 -0500 > 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. Well, expressing the semantics of a formalism in another formalism that has neither a well-specified syntax nor a well-specified semantics does not seem like a winning strategy to me. > [...] > > > 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. Are you saying that P -> Ex C is different from Ex ( P -> C ) where x does not appear free in P? > > What should happen > > to these axioms? > > I'll have to look over the details, but basically, > I think they should be removed. Hmmm. This would change the axiomatization considerably. > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > peter
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 22:29:31 UTC