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

Re: semantics of daml:equivalentTo [was: Comments on Annotated DAML 1.6]

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:00:45 -0500
Message-Id: <v04210103b60ce6cf19a2@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: semantics of daml:equivalentTo [was: Comments on 
>Annotated  DAML   1.6]
>Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:29:56 -0400
> > I'd just like to elaborate on Jim's message. I believe that equivalentTo
> > is the DAML version of the SHOE <DEF-RENAME> element. In SHOE,
> > DEF-RENAME allows an ontology to provide an alias for a term defined
> > elsewhere. Essentially, it means that both terms reference the same
> > concept, and thus any assertion that is made using one term is also true
> > if the other term was substituted in its place. This is really easy to
> > implement: you keep a hash table that matches aliases with the base
> > terms (used in the original definitions) that they renamed, and upon
> > parsing a document or issuing a query you can perform the necessary
> > substitutions to rephrase it in only base terms.
> >
> > Because of the confusion that equivalentTo has caused on this list,
> > perhaps "renames" or "aliasOf" are better choices for the propery name?
> >
> > Jeff
>OK, here is where I feel that I must put in a scream for formality, or at
>least clarity. What does it matter whether the name is equivalentTo, 
>renames, aliasOf, or frobaz?  What matters, as far as I can see, is 
>what the meaning of
>"equivalentTo" is.

Well said. I agree with Peter here that we have to have some account 
of meaning which goes a little higher than implementation.  There is 
a reasonably well-defined meaning for equality (=identity = 
equivalence) which is pretty much what Jeff says above: it means that 
the terms refer to the same thing. So to assert
  equivalentTo(X, Y)
is to claim that X and Y have the same denotation. Now, this in turn 
is just as clear or as murky as the notion of denotation is for X and 
Y. Maybe it would help, therefore, if we could have a sketch of a 
semantic theory for DAML, since such a theory would make the meaning 
of 'equivalentTo' perfectly unambiguous. To keep things simple lets 
punt on the issues of whether an assertion is a global constraint, 
issues of who has the authority, etc., and just ask what the 
*content* of the assertion is. I can see in general terms how such a 
theory would go (based on the semantics for OIL), but the details are 
still a bit opaque. For example, consider the categories of Class, 
Thing and Property: do these overlap at all? Is a Class a kind of 
Thing? Can a Property apply to another Property? Things like that.

BTW,  DAML looks awfully like OIL (written in XML notation). It might 
also help if we could have a brief summary of where they differ.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 12:57:55 UTC

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