W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: P.S. Re: Model Theory

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 07:57:44 -0500
To: e.motta@open.ac.uk
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020107075744P.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: P.S. Re: Model Theory
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:37:05 +0000

> 2) Some 'KR programming cliches' are useful in practice but are 
> tricky to formalise in a model theory (e.g., reification, defaults, 
> etc..). Now, taking a 'pragmatic' approach means that we do not 
> <<automatically>> discard these constructs, simply because we do not 
> know how to write the model theory.  Maybe an alternative approach to 
> specification can be used, or maybe we simply state algorithmically 
> how intepreters will deal with these constructs. 

If you (or someone else) can come up with a workable specification for
these constructs, then I would be very happy.  The problem lies in
determining what constructs mean, whether it be via a model theory, via a
proof theory, via axiomatization, or even via some more-operational
mechanism.  In the absence of a workable specification for a construct,
e.g, reification, and, moreover, one that has good connection to the
intended meaning of the construct, I am unwilling to include the construct
in a representation language.

> - Enrico

peter

PS:  Actually defaults do have several decent specifications.  However, the
specifications have very bad computational properties, which make them
problematic in a *useful* representation language.
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 07:59:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT