|To:||edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:41:42 -0500|
At least with OWL the models have well-defined formal semantics,...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that OWL shares with full first order logic the property of having in general more than one model for a given set of clauses.
If so, there's ambiguity about what it should be possible to deduce, and the formal semantics is therefore not well-defined.
Hope I'm wrong about this. John, Christoph, Others care to comment? (Perhaps under a new subject heading.)
Thanks, -- Adrian
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Ed Barkmeyer|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Ed Barkmeyer|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, John F. Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|