- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:55:52 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Peter <meancity@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Er, I may just be repeating an obvious reference but, just in case, I'll mention Alex Borgida's 1996 paper "On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and Predicate Logics", which makes its point by setting up a translation: ftp://ftp.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/borgida/dl-vs-fol.pdf.gz #g -- At 15:38 27/09/04 -0400, Harry Halpin wrote: >While we're on the topic.... > Is there any way to map from FOL->DL while minimizing expressive >power lost? While I'm being informal with "minimizing expressive power >lost", I mean either: > a) Given a formula \phi, the translated formula T(\phi) should be > logically equivalent to \phi. > b) Given a formula \phi, the translated formula T(\phi) should be > satisfiable iff the formula \phi is satisfiable. > > Now, clearly this won't work for all of FOL, but it could for >some statements. And you think there would be ways of going from FOL->DL >that were sensible. > Ian Horrocks had a few simple rules in his FOL vs. DL Reasoner >paper, but I can't find much else in the literature. Anyone got >any ideas or references? > FOL can be useful, see Pat Hayes's note: >ttp://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/~sst/is/WebOntologyLanguage/hayes.htm > > -Harry > > >On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Peter wrote: > > > > > dear all, > > > > given a sentence like this > > "book has color red" > > > > how can i map it into FOL format > > subject, object, property and property value > > which is which. thank u > > sorry for newbie quesiton. > > > > yours > > peter. > > > > ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 10:00:31 UTC