From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/12/01
On November 12, Graham Klyne writes: > As one who relatively recently became aware of description logics, I found > that a very useful, readable paper. Thanks for that. I think it deserves > wider awareness outside this community. > > (It has seemed to me that relatively few of the papers that deal with > description logics are available online. I have been unable to get hold of > some that were suggested to me, such as past ICCS proceedings. Has anyone > yet written a textbook on description logics?) A description logic handbook has just been completed and is about to go to press. Should be available second quarter of next year. There is lots of good information in there on DLs, but unfortunately there wont be much at the "tips on how to use the damn thing" level. For this we desperately need an updated version of the Classic paper. Deb and I volunteered to do it, but it is hard to find the time to do it with everything else that is going on at the moment. We are still trying though :-). Regards, Ian > > #g > -- > > At 09:08 AM 11/8/01 -0800, Deborah McGuinness wrote: > >That was for a mostly less expressive language than daml+oil (although > >interestingly > >enough would have happily been able to say the thing that jeff wanted to > >say since > >it did have same-as as a constructor). > > > >[1] > >http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/living-with-classic-abstract.html > > ------------------------- > __ > /\ \ Graham Klyne > / \ \ (GK@ACM.ORG) > / /\ \ \ > / / /\ \ \ > / / /__\_\ \ > / / /________\ > \/___________/ > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST