Ah! So the remark could be translated as 'there is nothing DL specific in it'. Right? This makes sense... Ivan Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2008, at 16:03, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> Can somebody (eg, Uli:-) explain what is meant by the remark: >> >> "DL Semantics" and "RDF-Based Semantics" (But Uli says it's not DL.) >> >> I know she said that on the call, but I did not really grasp that at the >> time either... > > Let me hazard a guess and test my understanding. > > The RDF-Based semantics are worth calling such because they depart > significantly from standard first order logic style model theory. (Yes, > it's first order, but it is definitely not Ye Old Principa Model > Theory.) Whereas the "DL semantics" are just regular old first order > semantics. (Really more propositional modalish in presentation, but in > the structures it's plain old normal semantics). > > Someone coming to the documents with a model theory background is in for > far far far less of a shock (if any) when confronting the "DL" > semantics. Indeed, it would be confusing because it would suggest > something DLish about them. The name "RDF-Based" does the right thing by > signaling that there *is* something different and giving a cue where to go. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdfReceived on Friday, 19 September 2008 15:30:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:52 UTC