Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal

>> 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