Re: semantics document revised

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: semantics document revised
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:58:03 -0500

> >From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> >Subject: Re: semantics document revised
> >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:39:34 -0500
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>  I don't follow you. Of course, in general, they won't have a single
> >>  common interpretation.  RDF doesn't have a single common
> >>  interpretation, after all, so the interpretation of the RDFS
> >>  vocabulary is going to change across interpretations.  Maybe in some
> >>  of them there will be classes with more than 57 subclasses, in others
> >>  there won't. Some RDFS graphs can be satisfied in very small
> >>  interpretations.
> >
> >Let me rephrase my concern then.
> >
> >I am concerned that there is no Large OWL interpretation of the empty
> >graph.  Remember, such a Large OWL interpretation has to consistently
> >assign class extensions to things like the class of classes that have at
> >most 57 superclsses.
> 
> Right. OK, how about if I construct a large OWL interpretation of the 
> empty graph? That would be the required 'core structure' for all 
> other interpretations in any case. I have to provide interpretations 
> for the RDFS+OWL vocabularies, but nothing more. Bet you a glass of 
> scrumpy I can do it?
> 
> Pat

Sure, I'm not averse to a nominal bet on this.  I don't promise to drink
the scrumpy if I win.

Of course, I've never said that there was not a Large OWL interpretation of
the empty graph.  All I've said is that it is not obvious that there is one
and that I don't believe that your arguments so far have shown that there is.

peter

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 06:35:24 UTC