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

Re: A Model Theoretic Semantics for DAML-ONT

From: Richard Fikes <fikes@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:16:30 -0800
Message-ID: <3A146ACE.21D9DC31@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> You mentioned that the semantics for KIF 'holds' means that anything of
> the form (holds ?x ?x) must be false for ?x.  However, the documents
> referenced by the Axiomatic Semantics paper (which appear to be the
> definitive documents on KIF) do not provide any semantics for this
> predicate.

I addressed the issue of the missing semantics for "holds" in my earlier
message to you as follows:

> Regarding "holds".  You are right that the semantics for "holds" is not
> in the documents referenced on the current KIF Web site.  I just
> discovered that omission this afternoon.  I have not been involved in
> the KIF standardization effort recently and so do not know why the
> semantics for "holds" was not included in the current documents.  Those
> semantics were in section 8.3 of the original KIF specification
> (available at http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-92-86.html)
> and, as you mentioned, are obvious.  Namely:
> 
> Given an interpretation I and a variable assignment V, the truth value
> with respect to I and V of a sentence of the form "(holds P T1 ... Tn)"
> is true if and only if the relation denoted by the semantic value with
> respect to I and V of P is true of the objects denoted by the semantic
> value with respect to I and V of each of the arguments T1 ... Tn.
> 
> I will contact Genesereth to determine what if any rationale there was
> for not including the semantics of "holds" in the current KIF documents.

Richard
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 18:16:22 UTC

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