Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal

From: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@TU-Cottbus.De>
Subject: Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:35 -0000

> >> 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.

Yes, but where is this tied to the mappings?

> >> 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...

How about adding K and A modal operators?

> >> 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].

They are?  I don't see a real semantics for the proposal, so how can you
say this?

> >> 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).

Even predicate applications with 5 arguments?

> -Gerd


peter

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 13:48:19 UTC