- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:37:37 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
At 08:49 21/11/03 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >Agreed. However, this is not really a model-theoretic semantics at all. >Instead it is a translation to some other formalism that may or may not >have a model-theoretic semantics. If the translation is intuitive (and >simple and ...) then, sometimes, a model-theoretic semantics for the other >formalism may induce a decent model-theoretic semantics for the initial >formalism. (But then why not take the easy step of writing down this >induced model-thoeretic semantics directly?) However, such translations are >usually not very simple and thus any benefits of a model-theoretic >semantics of the other formalism do not accrue to the original formalism. > >The translation for DAML+OIL, for example, does NOT provide this benefit. >Even the simple translation from SKIF to FOL is rather suspect in this >regards. I *think* I understand the distinction between proof-theoretic and model-theoretic semantics. But I'm not clear what are these advantages of MT semantics to which you refer. Can you point me at a not-too-heavy essay or paper that provides some elucidation of this point? Thanks. #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 11:09:16 UTC