- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:00:32 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- 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? The proposal said: So, by semantics we mean the notion of satisfaction of a formula in the interpretations of the various RIF dialects. For example, in FO, all first-order interpretations are appropriate. In LP, infinite Herbrand models are typically used. In LP with the well-founded semantics, 3-valued Herbrand models are used. Stable model semantics uses only 2-valued interpretations. There are different notions of interpretations and each comes with its own definition of |=. When we say "first-order semantic structure", we mean a particular definition of |=. A "3-valued well-founded model" has its own definition, etc. This was the intention, if the above wasn't sufficiently clear. Given that this is a first draft (which didn't even pretend to be completely formal), I claim that we can get some slack here. Will try to clean it up in the next iteration. > > 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. This was too subtle for some of us to understand... --michael > peter
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 19:00:47 UTC