1 / 8

DAML Language Breakout Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University

DAML Language Breakout Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University www.ksl.stanford.edu. 2/15/01. Topics. Reification Defaults/Non-Monotonicity Proof Checking Concrete vs. abstract domains (pre-defined types vs. user-defined types) (datatypes vs. classes).

dtrull
Download Presentation

DAML Language Breakout Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DAML Language Breakout Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University www.ksl.stanford.edu 2/15/01

  2. Topics • Reification • Defaults/Non-Monotonicity • Proof Checking • Concrete vs. abstract domains (pre-defined types vs. user-defined types) (datatypes vs. classes)

  3. Reification (from dictionary: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.) • Requirement: Need to make statements about statements. • Extensive discussion concerning potential pitfalls, usage in rdf, relationship to RDF, requirements • Conclusion – if we include reification, we will expect problems • Speculation – we may not be able to avoid modalities as long as we might have thought.

  4. Defaults/Rules • Currently no default/rule/negation as failure capability in DAML+OIL • Agreement that some solution is needed • Consider some mechanism on top of the core language • Observation that negation as failure in rule systems has long history of usage, tractability, etc. • Action Items – form rule mailing list (Ben Grosof will seed the list) • Small group followup meeting on topic

  5. Proof Checks • Discussion on non-monotonicity led to a discussion of possibly checking non-monotonic proofs • Discussion followed on proof checks of (possibly partial) deductions • Can either trust reasoners or just check their proofs • Proof checking requires tractable proof checking systems • Followup among interested parties

  6. Concrete Data Types • Consensus that concrete data type (numbers, strings, etc) are necessary • Consensus around basic proposal initiated by Horrocks and Patel-Schneider • Technical discussion about rdf syntax. • Peter (and Ian and Frank) will provide a modified proposal taking into account Connolly’s document http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ct24 • Expectation is that this will be included in the language prior to semantic web activity

  7. Other issues? • Send email to rdf-logic mailing list (or dlm@ksl.stanford.edu)

  8. Background • Attended by most of ad-hoc committee (physically or virtually) • Solicited feedback on current language and wishes for modifications/extensions • No feedback on current language other than extensions

More Related