- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:48:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: wagnerg@TU-Cottbus.De
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
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