Dear Pat, (01)
Oh dear! What a tangled web we weave:-) (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (04)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: 07 July 2012 03:09
> To: [ontolog-forum] ; Chris Menzel
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2012, at 4:25 PM, Chris Menzel wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Matthew,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 09:35:02PM +0100, Matthew West wrote:
> > > CM> ... classes are extensional in OWL.
> > > Is that extensional in that the extension is the members declared in
the
> OWL ontology, or is that extensional in the sense that the members define
the
> class, but I might not know about all of them?
> >
> > I think it's extensional in the sense that classes are not first class
> > entities but defined via the extension of the rdf:type property.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#sinterp
> >
> > Actually, yes, there is an RDF-compatible semantics for OWL I'd
forgotten
> about where OWL classes are simply entities that are assigned sets of
> individuals as their extensions. In this semantics, distinct classes can
have
> the same "members". But IIRC in both the W3C "direct" semantics for OWL
and
> the "model theoretic" semantics, OWL classes are simply sets of
individuals.
> >
> > Pat will probably jump in here and straighten me out...
>
> (Back from being a builder of kitchens, Pat reads lots of emails...)
>
> FIrst, there are several OWLs. OWL-Full is the most RDF-compatible, with
very
> few restrictions on what can be said in it, but has no complete reasoners
so
> isn't very widely used. OWL-DL has many restrictions. OWL-Full follows RDF
and
> RDFS in treating classes as first-class (sorry about the pun) entities and
> intensional, not extensional (in the sense that classes are not identified
> with sets, so it is consistent for two classes to have exactly the same
> members but still be distinct classes.) OWL-DL is quite different: it does
not
> allow classes to be first-class entities, and it assumes that classes are
> defined extensionally, i.e. are sets, ie defined by their membership. So,
to
> sum up:
>
> extensional = classes are identified with the sets of their members.
> intensional = not extensional, so having the same members does not
guarantee
> identity of classes. (Put another way, classes have 'robust identity'
which is
> independent of their membership.)
>
> OWL-Full: classes are individuals, just as in RDF and RDFS and Common
Logic.
> Classes are intensional.
> OWL-DL: classes are not individuals, and properties (binary relations)
only
> relate individuals, not classes. In the language of the ISO Common Logic
> specs, OWL-DL is a segregated dialect. Classes are extensional.
>
> The OWL specs give a 'direct' semantics for OWL-DL (which was the only OWL
> that many of the WG cared about, those people also being not particularly
> interested in RDF) whlie allowing OWL-Full to simply be an RDF extension.
This
> makes for confusing reading, and is the primary reason the specs are so
hard
> to follow..
>
> (There is also the newer standard OWL2-DL, which relaxes the syntax to
> apparently allow classes to contain other classes, just as in OWL-Full,
but in
> fact it does this by a mechanism called 'punning' which keeps the
underlying
> segregation in the semantics. And it also assumes extensionality.)
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Pat
>
>
> >
> > -chris
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|