- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:43:27 -0000
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> >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 Pat: > 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. > It has some risks, the chief of which is that legacy RDF code which > does not respect the 'unasserted' distinction might produce OWL > inconsistencies. I think this is at worst an interim problem which > will go away by itself, but we should consider it carefully. Pat maybe I am asking too much at that stage ... but here goes. How do unasserted triples fit into a model theory? Consider <foo> owl:oneOf [ <foo> ] . I'll start each line with an 'a' or a 'u' a <foo> <rdf:type> _:t . a _:t <owl:oneOf> _:l . u _:l <rdf:type> <owl:List> . u _:l <owl:first> <foo> . u _:l <owl:rest> <owl:nil> . I don't see how the bit in the first column helps in the model theoretic interpretation here. (Feel free to change any of the bits in any explanation - they are just my guesses as to what is being proposed). I assume that the above is 'true' in some sense, where <foo> owl:oneOf [ <bar> ] . is 'false' in the same sense. I can make that so in my solipsistic system, without any unasserted triples. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 09:47:20 UTC