Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!)

Guus,

(and just as I thought I was ready to write this up ...)

First, the A-box/T-box analogy might be a good one, in particular because it
demonstrates an accepted way to write a model theory for something that
looks like DL, thus the distinction _is an example of_ how the
unasserted/asserted distinction does provide a solution to the problem of
OWL having a non-paradoxical model theory.

This does not necessitate that:

a) WebOnt, at the end of the day, adopt this
b) prevent the OWL MT from _itself_ asserting classes as instances

What unasserted triples may itself do (assuming we use the A/T distinction)
is take the assertion out of RDF (MT) and deal with this in OWL (MT).

Is that about right?

Jonathan


> I'm getting a bit worried about the A-box/T-box discussions.
> We have "classes as instances" on our requirements list.
> We use it a lot in our (RDFS-based) applications, for example:
>
>   rosch:natural-category rfs:type rdfs:Class
>   aat:seating-furniture rdf:type rdfsClass
>
>   aat:chair rdf:type rosch:natural-category
>   aat:chair rdfs:SubClassOf aar:seating-furniture
>
> In words: a "chair" is a subclass of "seating furniture" (in the Art and
> Architecture Thesaurus) and an instance of a Roschian "natural category"
> (important meta-info for index/search purposes).
>
> Does this still mean something using dark triples?
>
> Guus
>
>
> --
> A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15
> NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793
> Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
> WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
>
>