OWA vs CWA

[Massimo Esposito]

Hi, i am a question about OWA and CWA. Is OWL based on the open world
assumption? Is it influenced by its dependency by RDF and RDFS?And is SWRL
based on the closed world assumption? And if i want to integrate OWL and
SWRL, how is the total behaviour?For example if i choose to use OWL DLP as
ontology language, SWRL as rule language, and i translate OWL ontologies
into SWRL rules and use a rule engine as Jena or Jess, is this semantic
system based on CWA or OWA? And is this depending on not only the semantic
languages by also on the inference engine?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Massimo

[Christine Golbreich]

You may have a look at the paper
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2005/HPPH05.pdf
If you translate it, why do you use OWL DLP for your ontology ?

Christine
----- Original Message -----
From: Massimo Esposito
To: protege-***@smi.stanford.edu
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: [protege-owl] OWA vs CWA


Hi, i am a question about OWA and CWA. Is OWL based on the open world
assumption? Is it influenced by its dependency by RDF and RDFS?And is SWRL
based on the closed world assumption? And if i want to integrate OWL and
SWRL, how is the total behaviour?For example if i choose to use OWL DLP as
ontology language, SWRL as rule language, and i translate OWL ontologies
into SWRL rules and use a rule engine as Jena or Jess, is this semantic
system based on CWA or OWA? And is this depending on not only the semantic
languages by also on the inference engine?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Massimo


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

[Massimo Esposito]

I read this paper, but i still have some doubts. The authors talk
about different semantic stacks but i am specifically interesting of the
Semantic Web Stack with First Order Rules because, in the past, I have used
SWRL rules layered on the top of OWL ontologies. My ontologies are written
in OWL DLP, that is i have utilized the DLP subset of OWL.
But i haven't yet understood if issues as CWA, OWA, NAF are related to the
specific semantic languages or to the inference engine which i mean to use.
I also read in the paper that "Features such as closed world assumption and
negation as failure (NAF) can be supported by powerful query languages". But
are these issues also related to the query languages, or to the query
engine asnwering my queries?
Thanks.

Post by Christine Golbreich
You may have a look at the paper
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2005/HPPH05.pdf
If you translate it, why do you use OWL DLP for your ontology ?
Christine
----- Original Message -----
From: Massimo Esposito
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: [protege-owl] OWA vs CWA
Hi, i am a question about OWA and CWA. Is OWL based on the open world
assumption? Is it influenced by its dependency by RDF and RDFS?And is SWRL
based on the closed world assumption? And if i want to integrate OWL and
SWRL, how is the total behaviour?For example if i choose to use OWL DLP as
ontology language, SWRL as rule language, and i translate OWL ontologies
into SWRL rules and use a rule engine as Jena or Jess, is this semantic
system based on CWA or OWA? And is this depending on not only the semantic
languages by also on the inference engine?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Massimo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

[YucongDuan]

for the cases like "...Therefore facts not stored in the database and not
derivable from the existing data
are considered false in the CWA and unknown or possible in the OWA.... "
---http://www.dsc.ufcg.edu.br/~ulrich/Artigos/MITO SBBD97.pdf

My argumentation:
1. in OWA, negation is not "considerated" at all. Or in another word,
negation is not cognitively available in the mind, and subsequently not
available in semantic expressions produced/organized in the mind.
2. if negation appearred in the background of OWA, it can not bear intended
semantics at ontological/existance level. It will be a pure notation instead
of a complete concept with both notation and intended semantic.

references:

[1] Yucong Duan, “A Dualism Based Semantics Formalization Mechanism for
Model Driven Engineering”, IJSSCI Volume1(4), IGI press 2009, page 90-110.

[2] Yucong Duan, C. Cruz and C. Nicolle. “Propose Semantic Formalization
for 3D Reconstruction of Architectural Objects”, IJCIS, 11(1), 2010, pp
1-10.

[3] Yucong Duan, C.Cruz. “Formalizing Semantic of Natural Language
through Conceptualization from Existence”. IJIMT, V2(1), pp37-42.

[4] Yucong Duan, Christophe Cruz, Christophe Nicolle. “Identifying
Objective True/False from Subjective Yes/No Semantic based on OWA and CWA”,
ICSCT 2010 IEEE CS press, pp1-5.

[5] Yucong Duan. “Attaining and applying consistency from semantic
evolved from conceptualization”, IC4E 2011, IEEE CS press , pp 353-359.



--
View this message in context: http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/protege-owl-OWA-vs-CWA-tp551p3752720.html
Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
protege-***@lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/fa

[YucongDuan]

Dear all,

I propose an discussion on
new topic: Should Closed World Assumption(CWA) and Open World
Assumption(OWA) be integrated?

My initial argumentations:

CWA vs. OWA could be interprated at serveral levels:
(1) as notations: CWA and OWA are supposed to be bound to concepts(CPT);
we also call that this argumentation is at notation expression level.
At this level, integration means simply composition of notations.

(2) as concepts: CWA and OWA are supposed to represent the semantics of the
individuals who utilize these two concepts to construct their expressions;
we also call that this argumentation is at conceptual level (conceptual
modeling);
At this level, integration actually rely on the integration of both
notations and semantics.

(3) as semantics: CWA and OWA are different in the sense of existence or
ontologically.
They can not be integrated since that the level of existence is supposed to
be not transcendable in an ultimate sense.
We call that this level is at semantic level.
At this level, integration action will mean defying the sense of ultimate of
existence/ontology which is the inner character of semantic.
Whatever can be done at this level is to identify the order (ORD) and
classification (CLA) for the reference of conceptual modeling and validation
of compositions of notations of concepts.

Sincerely,

Yucong Duan



--
View this message in context: http://protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/protege-owl-OWA-vs-CWA-tp551p3754998.html
Sent from the Protege OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
protege-***@lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03