@INPROCEEDINGS{Hustadt94c,
 AUTHOR        = {Hustadt, Ullrich},
 TITLE         = {Do we need the closed-world assumption in knowledge
representation},
 BOOKTITLE     = {Working Notes of the KI'94 Workshop: Reasoning about 
                  Structured Objects: Knowledge Representation Meets 
                  Databases (KRDB'94)},
 EDITOR        = {Baader, Franz and Buchheit, Martin and Jeusfeld, Manfred A.
                  and Nutt, Werner},
 SERIES        = {Document},
 VOLUME        = {D-94-11},
 PUBLISHER     = {DFKI},
 PAGES         = {24--26},
 PADDRESS      = {Saarbr{\"u}cken, Germany},
 PMONTH        = nov,
 CADDRESS      = {Saarbr{\"u}cken, Germany},
 CYEAR         = {1994},
 CMONTH        = sep # {~20--21},
 ABSTRACT      = {In this paper I want to focus on some principal 
     differences between data models of database systems and knowledge 
     representation languages.  

     The data manipulation languages of data models are based on the
     closed-world, unique-name, and domain-closure assumption.
     Data manipulation languages and query languages of
     knowledge representation formalisms differ considerably in their
     underlying assumptions. They are based on the open-world, unique-name, 
     and open-domain assumption. 
     That means, that even if the data definition language and the data
     manipulation language of a database management system and a knowledge
     base management system would coincide, the results of data
     manipulations would differ. 

     I present some examples that show the usefulness
     of closed-world inferences in natural language processing. Thus
     knowledge representation languages sticking to the open-world
     assumption seem to be insufficient for natural language processing.}
}