Patrick Logan <patrickdlo...@gmail.com> writes: > OWL has several levels of increasingly expressive but general inferences. > Much of the domain could be represented in OWL (classes (i.e. sets), > instances (i.e. set membership), relationships with domains and ranges, > etc.), but there would still be a need for the domain-specific inferences > described in the original post.
Not sure that I understand the domain-specifc inferences that you mean here; you want a model of the domain that draw inferences over that model. The actual inferencing technology that you need is not domain-specific. > The other concern about applying OWL when it comes to security and privacy > is that OWL is based on Open World reasoning and does not follow the Unique > Name Assumption. OWL would say, "Unless these two things are explicitly > designated as being different, assume they *might* be the same thing." You > have to go a bit further to close off these open questions in OWL. One of the motivations for tawny, is that you can automate this process. By default, the logic of OWL will not assume that Alice and Bob are different people, as you say, but it's easy to add these statements. Phil -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
