Re: mappings between SWRL and Boley proposal

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