Re: Moving forward

>>I'm not sure what you mean by ``damage''.
>>One way to go would be to
>>1/ ask for ``unasserted'' stuff in RDF
>>2/ place restrictions on the form of the DAML+OIL constructs
>>This *might* result in a viable solution, depending on how much of a
>>is made to RDF.  The change to DAML+OIL here would be
>>1/ the syntax
>>2/ the model theory
>I am confident that this will be a viable solution. Existing code
>does this, in effect, and seems to work reliably, and there is a
>clear strategy for providing a coherent semantics. I do not even
>think that it will require significant changes to DAML+OIL; the only
>extra requirement is that the daml:list triples be unasserted in RDF.

right, fully agreed

as an aside, I have some trouble that
  :John a :Person .
  :John a :Student .

would entail
  :John a [ owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) ] .

but no trouble that it would entail
  :John a ( owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) ) .

IF                             | THEN
?x a ?a                        | ?x a ( owl:intersectionOf ( ?a ) )
?x a ?a                        | ?x a ( owl:intersectionOf ( ?a / ?b ) )
?x a ( owl:intersectionOf ?b ) |
where the ( :a / :b ) is shorthand for [ owl:first :a; owl:rest :b ]

but maybe I haven't thought hard enough???


Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 20:43:16 UTC