- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:14:09 -0000
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jim found a semantically significant typo. Jeremy: [[[ Using this API it is very natural to ask give me all the triples that have <foo> as subject and <type> as predicate. [MISTAKE: delete "not"] It will not be: - difficult to implement - and unhelpful to all users if the correct answer is at least owl:oneOf ( <foo> ) owl:oneOf ( <foo> <foo> ) owl:oneOf ( <foo> <foo> <foo> ) .... solipsism provides better answers and a more usable system, and hence a more useable language. ]]] Jim: [[[ (snip) but do you mean it will be or it will not be difficult to implement and unhelpful? that is I think you mean it is bad to have the infinite series of oneOfs as answers, but the above seems to argue you suddenly are in favor of it -- is this a typo or a conceptual problem on my part? ]]] Typo. I think the "not" in "It will not be" was a mistake, sorry. What I was trying to say is that my understanding of Peter's assumption is that all the set theoretic consequences of any owl ontology should be present in all models. While I shared that assumption until the last telecon, I believe that that presents signification implementation difficulties, and if we can avoid it in a sound fashion then it is positively desirable and not merely a way out of a hole. Jim: > p.s. Solipcism would not be my choice for what to call this, I am quite happy to change the name ... For the sake of this discussion, I did want an extreme label.
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2002 10:15:27 UTC