We suffer from identical syntax and allegedly identical semantics all
the time in data exchange (ISO 10303), so I don't see why logic should
be any difference. Its only when we ground the semantics of the data in
the behaviour of the application/organization that we have any hope of
success, and then only after a long and painful process of testing. Even
in the relatively well specified area of geometry, it has taken many
years of effort and continuous testing to get a reasonably reliable
exchange (though not 100%), and there is still a considerable amount to
do. (01)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (02)
This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process
of public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the
contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not
represent an official company view. (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Kathryn Blackmond Laskey
> Sent: 03 August 2007 19:21
> To: [ontolog-forum] ; Valentin Zacharias
> Cc: Juan Sequeda; SW-forum list; [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> >...I could accept the idea of a common notation for if-then
> rules, but
> >with two very clearly specified options for the semantics:
> >
> > 1. A purely classical FOL that is compatible with CL and its
> > subsets, such as Z, RDF(S), and OWL.
> >
> > 2. A negation-as-failure semantics that is compatible with the
> > ISO standard for Prolog.
> >
> >If you want that, then say so. But make it very, very clear
> that the
> >two semantics are *not* compatible -- and that no attempt to
> exchange
> >rules between the two versions of semantics should be done, except
> >under stringently controlled conditions.
>
> The idea of a single syntax with two different incompatible
> semantics scares me.
>
> K
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (04)
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
******************************************************************** (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|