On Jul 14, 2007, at 9:42 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: (01)
> OWL is a very simple language, which just represents triples. The
> elements of those triples may be uninterpreted strings or pointers
> to combinations of triples that ultimately reduce to uninterpreted
> strings. (02)
I would agree that, considered among the wide variety of human
languages, OWL is a very simple language. I don't really understand
why you say the rest, as I'm certain you know better. OWL-DL, the
part of OWL whose computational properties are best understood,
allows one to express exactly what can be expressed by a certain
portion of first order logic[1]. Only one of the ways of writing OWL
involves using a syntax involving triples, in another, the "Abstract
syntax" there is no sight of them. So OWL does not represent triples,
rather triples can represent OWL. (03)
As you point out in a subsequent message, the semantics of OWL can be
captured by SCL. I would be interested in knowing which portion of
SCL - (OWL in SCL) prevents the second issue you raise about
"ultimately reduc[ing] to uninterpreted strings". (04)
-Alan (05)
[1] On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and
Predicate Logics (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|