Re: Web Rule Language - WRL vs SWRL

Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
> Drew McDermott wrote:
> >
> > One could develop a pretty formal account of how
> > this thing worked, including an account of what inferences were
> > licensed under what circumstances.  But it would have nothing to do
> > with the _semantics_, which could be specified in advance,
> > independently of the details of the inferential mechanisms.
> 
> I'll be interested to know if Michael thinks this is a defense of him :)

I think that here by "semantics" Drew means Tarskian-like model theory --
definitions of what is and is not a model. By choosing a subset of
"intended" models one can define entailment relations of various degrees of
hairiness.

This is a standard story of semantics for nonmon inference.
I don't see what you think should upset me here. 

I may be misunderstanding either or both of you. :-)


	--michael