- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 28 May 2002 22:57:23 -0500
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
When Jeremy first proposed[15Mar] avoiding layering paradoxes by way of a theory of classes in which "nothing necessarily exists," I replied that this was going to undercut sharing. Now I'm not so sure. I was chatting with some folks, and I tried to explain why this 'solipsistic' approach wasn't good enough, and I found that my argument didn't hold water. It's intuitively appealing, but I couldn't think of any actual use cases that need a system that infers the existence of classes. On the contrary, I now think I could go a long way with an OWL language that gave me inverseOf, UniqueProperty, and the like without a very powerful theory of classes. I agree with [15Mar] that the answer to the Student/Employee test should be: no, that isn't a valid OWL inference. [15Mar] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0179.html hmm... that doesn't cover all 5 cases from the 21Mar list of tests... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0251.html but that list had some bugs too... there's a debugged version somewhere, no? obligatory issues list pointer: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#5.3-Semantic-Layering this issue also seems relevant, though it's not yet open: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#5.10-DAML+OIL-semantics-is-too-weak -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 03:16:45 UTC