W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2008

Re: different kinds of semantics

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:00:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080209.130006.226878428.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: RE: different kinds of semantics
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:35:53 -0500

> What about type checking in programming languages and databases?
> How could this be included (if at all) in the framework below?

I don't see that programming language semantics fits into this document
on semantics for representation and modelling formalism.  I did include
a little bit about semantics for databases in the model-theoretic
section.  I'm not sure where "algebraic" semantics for relational
databases would fit in.

> I know you have some papers comparing and contrasting type checking
> with model theory and Alex Borgida also has done some work on the same.

I'm not sure which papers you are referring to.

> Would be great to hear your thoughts on this issue.
> 
> ---Vipul

peter

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. 
> > Patel-Schneider
> > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 12:08 PM
> > To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: different kinds of semantics
> > 
> > 
> > Here is my take on various ways that one can specify semantics for a
> > representation or modelling formalism.  This is a very short 
> > high-level
> > overview, without many specifics, but I think that it shows off the
> > differences between the various kinds of semantics.  Note that I have
> > only specified semantics for monotonic formalisms.

[...]
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:04:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 9 February 2008 18:04:20 GMT