- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@TU-Cottbus.De>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:35 -0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>, <wagnerg@TU-Cottbus.De>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
>> Why do you map the conjunctive SWRL-Antecedent to a disjunction? >> Obviously, your mapping does not preserve satisfaction, >> which is a requirement in the proposal. > > Where is this mentioned in the proposal? The proposal may not be sufficiently explicit about this, but it states that modeltheoretic satisfaction gives the meaning to conditions. >> Let me suggest another mapping based on an extended version of >> the proposal syntax with optional typing. > > Where do we get to propose extensions? Can I propose an extension and use > it in my mappings? The proposal mentions the option of typing terms and predicates/atoms. So, I just made use of this option (in the spirit of the proposal). Of course, you are free to suggest another style of typing... >> This pretty much preserves your mapping, but is more meaningful >> with respect to antecedent (and to the allowed forms of >> 'description', 'unionOf' and 'intersectionOf'). > > How is it more meaningful in the terms of the proposal? Because the models of the SWRL antecedent A are exactly the models of its mapping result M[A]. >> The extended proposal syntax with optional typing also >> allows a faithful inverse mapping of typed atoms to SWRL. > > Oh? Which atoms? All of them? Yes all of them (modulo some subtleties concerning restrictions and the generic datatype rdfs:Literal). -Gerd
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 13:38:52 UTC