Re: DAML+OIL semantics

Peter,

Some brief comments below.

Thanks for your detailed replies.

Jim


[...]

> > JF:    OK, let's see....
> > 
> > 
> >        1) what is the right way to get at the question whether the DAML+OIL 
> >        axiomatic semantics "gives us the same thing" as the DAML+OIL 
> >        model-theoretic semantics?  Does it make sense to try to ask such
> >        a question, or is it a case of apples and oranges?
> 
> This is a valid question.  To be more precise, the kind of question that
> you can ask is, given the axiomatization, A, and two DAML+OIL KBs, K and Q,
> whether 
> 	K entails Q in the model theory
> iff
> 	K + A entails Q in the model theory of the logic underlying the
> 	axiomatization
> 
> One can also ask an equivalent question, namely whether 
> 	K entails Q in the model theory
> iff
> 	Q can be derived from K + A in a sound and complete proof theory
> 	for the logic underlying the axiomatization
> 
> Unfortunately, the answer to this question is no.


The fact that the answer is no seems like not a good thing, though it 
seems it may be a fact of life.  ??


To what can this fact be attributed - properties of the DAML+OIL 
axiomatization? Properties of the logic underlying the axiomatization
(which is what, by the way?)?

Something else?

How do DAML+OIL people respond to or deal with this fact, which seems
to say that one can't be sure that the axiomatic semantics for DAML+OIL
"give the same thing" as the model-theoretic semantics?

The reason I ask is that an implementer without much logical background
might suppose that since two well-defined semantics are provided for
DAML+OIL, they do in fact "give the same thing" as far as meanings and
inferences are concerned.

Thanks,

Jim

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 10:57:33 UTC