W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > November 2003

Re: SWSL declarative semantics

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:18:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031121.111835.50724529.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: GK@ninebynine.org
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Subject: Re: SWSL declarative semantics
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:37:37 +0000

> 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

Hmm.  Good question.   I don't know of one off-hand, but as I haven't
taught a course on this, I don't follow what introductory material is

Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 11:25:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:01 UTC