Re: SEM: OWL Full semantics

>Pat, in your message
>you wrote very sensible comments which I fully support.
>If I may suggest, put on your OWL S&AS editor's hat and
>put it those changes !-)

AS&S is a multi-document, and each part of it has a different editor 
list. I only commented on the parts of the document where I am not 
listed as editor, and they were intended as comments to the editors 
of those sections.

>  Further on, as I have suggested
>many times, the OWL Full vocabulary extension of the
>RDFS semantics [RDFS MT] could be made explicit in the
>shape of corresponding entailment or inference rules
>which are sanctioned by those OWL Full semantics.

Yes, that could be done, if necessary as back-projections from the 
translation into Lbase, though it would be rather complicated to get 
a complete set of rules (and very complicated to prove it was 
complete), and they would not all be simple "closure" rules in the 
RDFS style.

>What I captured from many people in the community
>is that they are really interested in that and that
>it would drastically increase interoperability between
>OWL Full reasoners, verifiers and explainers. I also
>believe that this is a realistic job; even achieving
>a minimum set is much better than having nothing ;-)

Interesting idea.  However, I think this would be a different 
document.  Obviously, if I had my druthers the entire AS&S document 
would have been written in a different style, with OWL presented as 
first an extension of RDFS (OWLFull, that is) then with a syntax 
restriction to get OWLDL, and with the abstract syntax and 
'conventional' model theory presented last, almost as an appendix. 
But this was clearly a minority view among the trio of editors; Peter 
and Ian had already done a great deal of work on the abstract syntax 
when we worked out the RDF-compatible semantics, and Ian was not 
fully convinced of the internal coherence of the RDF-style model 
theory; so to have tried to force my own ideas on the group would 
have led to endless in-fighting, and Peter has done a very nice job 
within the current style, so I don't think it is worth trying to 
rewrite the whole thing. I would just like to clarify the 
relationship of the various OWLs to RDF in the wording of the text 
here and there, is all.

It might be worth trying to write an entirely different document in 
the style you suggest, by the way, a kind of integrated 
semantic/inference-rule account of all the W3C SW languages.  But if 
any of us suggest that this be done by Webont, Guus will turn purple.


IHMC				(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.		(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           			(850)291 0667   cell	   for spam

Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 14:37:11 UTC