W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > August 2002

Re: DAML+OIL semantics

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:59:07 -0400
To: jim@spatial.maine.edu
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020813105907I.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jim Farrugia <jim@spatial.maine.edu>
Subject: Re: DAML+OIL semantics
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:43:18 -0400 (EDT)

> Peter,
> 
> Second short one.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> JF:    Would anyone from the DAML+OIL community have agreed to offer
>        offer up DAML+OIL with only the axiomatic semantics, or only the
>        model-theoretic semantics?  From what you suggest above, I'm guessing
>        that DAML+OIL wouldn't have been offered up without a model-theoretic
>        semantics (since then you wouldn't have been able to address soundness
>        or completeness), but I can't guess whether it might have been
>        offered up without an axiomatic semantics.

Yes.  :-)

Well there are several schools of thought here, ranging from those who
think that the model theory is all that is needed to those who think that
the model theory is not useful (because the axiomatization provides a model
theory, namely the model theory of first-order logic).

peter
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 11:00:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC