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

Re: Moving forward

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:02:07 -0500
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020319100207P.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: Moving forward
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:38:08 -0800


> >A fourth way to go would be to
> >1/ use a different semantic relationship for inference
> I do not understand what this means, and request clarification. 
> Entailment is pretty much established by a semantics, seems to me: A 
> entails B if every model of A is also a model of B. That doesn't 
> leave much flexibility for different semantic relationships for 
> inference.

The sort of thing I am alluding to here is similar to what I see in some of
the recent messages.

For example, to determine if

	i rdf:type :_1
	:_1 .....

follows from a KB, don't use entailment directly.  Instead, augment the KB
with the appropriate triples related to :_1, and then ask whether the
augmented KB entails

	i rdf:type :_1

Admittedly, this kind of inference is based on entailment, but it is not
exactly entailment.

Another possibility is to have

	i rdf:type :_1
	:_1 ...

follow from a KB if in all models of KB i is an element of the class
extension of :_1, where class extension is defined in a manner similar to
the way it would be in a description logic.  This kind of inference is
*not* based on entailment, although it is, of course, closely related to

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 10:03:41 UTC

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