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

Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 30 May 2002 16:10:35 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1022793036.25654.240.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 16:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory
> Date: 30 May 2002 15:16:19 -0500
> 
> > On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 14:37, patrick hayes wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Whoa. If this  really is a same-syntax extension then in order for 
> > > this to be meaningful you need to show how recursion can be expressed 
> > > in RDF (good luck).
> > 
> > Huh? In the DAML+OIL model theory, the prose appeals
> > to all sorts of traditional set theoretic notions
> > when expressing constraints on interpretations...
> > it uses stuff like |{...}| to denote the
> > cardinality of sets and such.
> 
> Yes, but the DAML+OIL model theory conditions work on the n-triples, i.e.,
> on the syntax, where things are much nicer.

Now I'm confused; the stuff in the "Semantic Constraint"
are a constraint on the semantic domain, no?

The example I gave is from that column:

  x in IC(?R) iff IR(?P)({x}) <= IC(?C)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-model-20011218#3


>  You may remember that the
> axiomatic definition had to be modified a few times to take care of these
> subtle points.
> 
> [...]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 18:41:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT