This is a topic I am very interested in, but I'm going to assume at this point that this diversion from my original post (which I am still interested in getting an answer to) is of little or no interest to others on this list. Therefore, I'm taking it off-line, although you can clamor for it to return if my assumption is wrong. ;-)


On 7/3/14, 6:29 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If nothing else, already too many people have an entirely wrong view of OWL "constraints" and see them as constraining the properties and values rather than providing axioms for reasoning because they are used to closed world thinking.

I would prefer to discuss this using a different language. If someone makes a conscious choice to use alternative semantics with OWL, for good reasons and with an eye to the consequences, that's not "entirely wrong". That's a reasonable choice. That's an example of one of the ways in which new technology is invented.

As far as the "hammer and nail", there are two sides to every story. {grin}
[Joni Mitchell f/Paul Simon (el condo pasta mix)]

Both the TrOWL NBox, and the Clark and Parsia ICV have well defined formal semantics.  

The semantics of the NBox is defined in section 4 of [1], which adds two inference rules to those of "classical" description logics, and proves that these rules provide NAF semantics. Tutorial slides are available at [2].

The semantics of Stardog ICV were prepared by Héctor Pérez-Urbina, Evren Sirin, and Kendall Clark  in  [3] , and are based on Jiao Tao, Evren Sirin, Jie Bao, and Deborah L. McGuinness's paper [4] . 

It would be fair to describe these authors as not entirely unfamiliar with OWL and DL semantics. 



Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet