From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 02/20/01
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > There was a comment during today's teleconference to the effect that an > extension to DAML+OIL would be trivial as long as there was a (KIF) > axiomatization for it. Well, perhaps not trivial, but well-specified, yes. > This belief seemed to spring from the fact that > there is a KIF axiomatization for DAML+OIL. No, it springs from a belief that KIF (or any equivalent FOPC notation) is a reasonably precise way to specify things. > This is decidedly not the case. Extending DAML+OIL by adding axioms to the > axiomatization is a very dangerous endeavour. Some extra axioms can be > accommodated, and will not change the characteristics of DAML+OIL. Which characteristics are you talking about? Decidability? something else? You referred to a decision that DAML+OIL should be decidable. Would you please cite a record of that decision? I must have missed it. Are these characteristics that we should guard closely documented in our spec? Please point me to them. > Others, > although seemingly innocuous, would drastically change DAML+OIL. > Determining just what changes will be made by a particular set of extra > axioms is extremely difficult. > > To illustrate this point, consider RDF(S). RDF(S) has a KIF > axiomatization. It does? I can sort of imagine one, but I've never seen one. You have rasied a number of questions (about bags containing themselves etc.) that I don't know how to answer; I wouldn't expect a KIF axiomitzation would leave such unanswered questions. > One could argue, as above, that extending RDF(S) by a > collection of extra axioms is trivial. > > However, suppose that we extend RDF(S) by the DAML+OIL axioms. We now end > up with a very different kind of representation language, with very > different characteristics. How so? I'm afraid I completely don't understand the point you're making. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 pager: mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org (put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST