Print

Print


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.

Simon

[1]  http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/jeff.z.pan/pages/pub/RPZ2010c.pdf
[2] http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/jeff.z.pan/pages/link/LCWR-tutorial.pdf
[3] http://docs.stardog.com/icv/icv-specification.html
[4] http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI10/paper/viewFile/1931/2229