W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 14 Dec 2001 15:38:37 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1008365918.6480.33.camel@shoal>
On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 13:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[...]
> What I meant was:
> 
> If D1 and D2 are two RDF documents that do not use any non-RDF DAML+OIL (or
> SWOL) constructs then D1 RDF-entails D2 precisely when D2 DAML+OIL- (or
> SWOL-) entails D2.

OK, yes. But it's kinda hard to say when an RDf
document doens't use DAML+OIL stuff... via some
chaing of subproperties etc.


> > > > > > I'd say SWOL entailment reduces to FOL entailment (less
> > > > > > the excluded middle).
> > > > > 
> > > > > SWOL entailment does exclude the middle.
> > > > 
> > > > Er... argument by assertion. I can do that too:
> > > > No, it does not.
> > > 
> > > I'm not making an argument by assertion, just stating a simple fact that
> > > can easily be determined from a quick perusal of the appropriate documents.
> > 
> > The word "middle" doesn't occur in
> > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/model-theoretic-semantics.html
> > 
> > I assume that's the the document you were talking about.
> > The text of that document is sufficiently dense that
> > I don't get much out of a quick perusal. I'd appreciate
> > if you'd point out where it says that DAML+OIL
> > excludes the middle.
> 
> If you are going to argue about logic and semantics please try to
> understand what you are arguing about.

Ah... now an ad hominem attack.
Also unconvincing.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 16:38:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:15 GMT