# Re: what is the meaning of the RDF model theory?

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 04:06:12 -0700
Message-ID: <004101c15569\$66fd7c20\$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
```From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

> >Ok, I used the wrong word again.  The question I am trying to ask in the
> >broadest terms is:  What difference will the MT make?.   It seems to me
that
> >the MT is supposed to tell us what a graph ~means~
>
> Say 'could mean', then yes.
>
> >and even provides an
> >algorithm to determine that ~meaning~.
>
> NO! Interpretations need not be computable. (Some of them are, but
> that's not the point.)
>
> >  But this ~interpretation thingy~ can
> >never be manifested inside a computer (can it?),
>
> Some can, some can't.

Which is where you loose me:(     If we are making a theory that the
computer can use, then, me thinks, being able to manifest the interpretation
of it inside the computer is a *requirement*.   Allowing part of the model
to be sustainable only by the ideals in a human's mind seems to me to be
less useful.

But I think there is one simple yet adequate ~model theory~.  Define an arc
(or even a pencil of them which is an sexpression) down to it's fine detail
such that it can be manifested in the computer.   Then something is in a
model (entailed by it?) iff an arc exists in the model or can be inferred by
the interpreter of the model.  The interpreter is just a program that
operates only on arcs.

This is the first rough draft of this idea ... please don't laugh too loud
if I've misused some words.

Seth Russell
```
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 07:06:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT