W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > November 2000

Re: model-theoretic semantics for DAML-ONT

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:00:06 -0500
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20001116160006C.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: model-theoretic semantics for DAML-ONT
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:47:07 -0600

> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > 
> > Hi:
> > 
> > I put together a draft of a model-theoretic semantics for DAML-ONT as a
> > counterpoint to the axiomatic semantics recently submitted to this list.
> > 
> > Comments are welcome.
> 
> Upon quick reading, this semantics agrees with my understanding
> of DAML-ONT.
> 
> I have a question of clarification:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Peter Patel-Schneider
> > 
> >                 A Draft Model-Theoretic Semantics for DAML-ONT
> > 
> [...]
> 
> > There currently is no unique name assumption nor is there a means of
> > asserting equality or inequality between individuals.  One or the other is
> > needed.
> 
> I don't understand how you can say both that and:
> 
> [...]
> > If <equivalentTo,?C,?D> is in KB then IC(?C) = IC(?D)
> 
> Isn't "IC(?C) = IC(?D)" asserting the equality of individuals?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dan

My (old) understanding was that equivalentTo was supposed to be for
classes.  I see now that there is no such restriction.  I'll modify the
semantics accordingly. 

Note that the semantics above only constrains the class extension, not the
object extension, and thus does not produce object identification.

peter
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 16:02:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:32 UTC