- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:42:18 -0400 (EDT)
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- Cc: wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de, public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:46:57 -0400 > > > > 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? > > > > This has not been made explicit in the proposal. So, > > let's do it. [Harold and Michael, we are waiting for > > your contribution to this.] > > It was sufficiently explicit in the proposal and Peter knew exactly what > was meant. The mapping is obviously supposed to satisfy the condition that > > I |= C <-> I |= M(C) > > for every interpretation appropriate for the dialect in question. In a > more general case, M can also be a transformation on models, but this is > not required for Peter's case. Well, where is the definition of interpretations and supports on the proposal side? I don't see one. Without such how can you talk about satisfying your condition above? > By the way, the proposal didn't talk about these mappings, but it should > have been obvious that such mappings are needed and that the above > condition should be satisfied. Someone who proposed to define these > mappings in the telecon must have also had something like this in mind. I had in mind, in part, trying to explicate what I felt was missing from the proposal and what was wrong with it. > --michael peter
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 18:42:39 UTC