W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Moving forward

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>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEGMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> >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

> 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.


maybe I am asking too much at that stage ... but here goes.

How do unasserted triples fit into a model theory?


<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.

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 09:47:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:28 UTC