W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2002

Re: TDL - Model theory take 1.

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:29:28 +0200
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B87319B8.C0A2%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

Thanks. I'll make the edits you suggest (and BTW, I'm using
good old vi ;-)

Other questions/comments may follow in later emails...

Patrick


On 2002-01-22 12:29, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
> 
> I reply to some of your earlier questions below.
> 
> I attach a snapshot of where I am at with the Model Theory, along with some
> comments on your text. The text I have produced so far is not either the
> simpler or the more advanced text that I am planning to produce and hence is
> not ready for insertion into the document yet. It's somewhere in between.
> Once I have finished it at this level I will both simplify and embellish it
> to produce the main text and the appendix text, respectively.
> 
> References for bit are:
> 
> The version of the RDF Model Theory I am working from is this one:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0007/01-RDF_Mode
> l_Theory.htm
> 
> Patel-Schneider's document is:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2001Dec/att-0156/01-swol2.
> text
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
>> 
>> Does it help to split the interpretation process onto two
>> "levels" or "phases" where first one interprets the idiom
>> to obtain the TDL pairing and then, once the pairing is
>> known, interpret the pairing to get the mapping.
> 
> Unfortunately not, see on.
> 
>> 
>> The latter phase seems (in my admitted ignorance) to be
>> rather simple, since there is a one to one correspondence
>> between a pairing and a mapping. And since the TDL pairing
>> includes the type and lexical form, they are both present
>> for the interpretation of that phase.
> 
> In practice we have to address the question of what happens when there are
> two types specified. This motivates a significant part of the complexity. S
> is significantly simpler in this respect, but buggy. (i.e. on the "as simple
> as possible but no simpler" axis, S-B, IMO goes too far).
> 
> 
>> 
>> As for the former phase, the interpretation of the idiom,
>> does this really need to be grounded in the MT?
> 
> Yes, because the global type information can only be accessed through the
> MT. e.g. a range constraint may be through any number of subProperty
> relationships etc.
> 
>> 
>> Also, for idiom S/B, the mapping is not explicit, but is
>> as implicit as the TDL pairing, as all that is identified
>> in the graph is the lexical space of the datatype (with the
>> datatype itself implied by the relation of lexical space
>> to datatype) and the lexical form. How is TDL different?
>> (asking this humbly so that I understand it myself)
>> 
>> The node that represents the actual member of the value space
>> is always constant, being the object node of the statement,
>> which is either labeled with the literal or an anonymous
>> node with rdf:value property defining the literal.
>> 
>>> I think we bite the bullet and make noises about tails and dogs).
>> 
>> Right.
>> 
>>> I am currently planning to get writing on Wednesday. I might
>> have some time
>>> tomorrow.
>> 
>> Fair enough. I plan to work on the final verbage today and tomorrow,
>> adding in the discussion of the desiderada and some clarifications
>> suggested by recent comments.
>> 
>> I think I'll put together a separate summary of what I see as the
>> shortcomings of S, not including it in the TDL proposal itself.
>> 
>> Patrick
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
>> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
>> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 06:38:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:16 GMT