- From: Martin Lacher <lacher@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:34:25 -0700
- To: "Leo Obrst" <lobrst@mitre.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <em@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <gdm@empolis.co.uk>
> I have to agree with Peter on this. I really can't understand the > alternative. Unless you really do formalize a third representation > language which attempts to "preserve" the semantics of the mappings > between your other two languages (say, with a notion of the formal > properties represented and preserved on each side through those > "mappings" or morphisms), then you are spinning in air. Semantic > interoperability or semantic "mapping" requires a commensurate > language/model. How else can it work? Modeling the semantics of a model > in the syntax of another model just can't work. You need to preserve the > semantics of the original model when you translate it into the syntax of > the other model (or approximate it to a greater or lesser degree of > possible formalization). Leo, Thank you for comments. We had a much more modest goal: to enable a user to query two information source the data models of which she understands. Martin
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 19:37:29 UTC