On 25 Mar 2009, at 20:35, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
Hello Bijan, All,
Hello Oliver.
These are not even transitive, right?
Which? I have 4 or so sketches.
Similarity can be transitive, for example. Transitivity isn't the only
thing one might want to do.
So what can we do with them
reasoning-wise?
Depends on the relation proposed. Thus far we've just sketched things
in a very broad way. Clear requirements haven't been developed.
I'm not sure why you are so knee jerk against exploring possibilities.
Isn't likeness too much in the eye of the beholder
No.
Similarity is one sort of possible relation and there are many
similarity metrics possible. And many ways of user defining it. Thats
sort of the point of having a logic.
to be agreed upon
universally?
I regard universal agreement as a non-goal.
Why not move such concepts to more specialized ontologies
instead of OWL?
OWL isn't an ontology.
We're talking about what might be useful relations to have expressible
with standard behavior up to and including inference support. I.e.,
thinks which are extensions or layers on OWL.
Of course, you can axiomitize arbitrary distinct equivalence
relationship in OWL since you have Transitivity, Reflexivity, and
Symmetry. So that is, of course, another option. It won't work with
counting, but perhaps that's ok for some purposes. It should be
mentioned as an option of course.
Of course, if people don't think investigations along these lines are
fruitful, I'm happy to drop it.
Cheers,
Bijan.
