Re: model theory (Alt and disjunction: just say no)

>pat hayes wrote:
> >
> > Attached is the final version of the MT document.
>
>|Alternatives are transparent containers which have a special
>disjunctive
>|intepretation.
>[...]
>|>> if x is in IALT then for any z in IP, <x y> is in IEXT(z) iff
>|for some n, <x(n) y> is in IEXT(z)
>
>Let's not go there/do that.

Well, OK, I tend to agree. However...

>
>Alt is just another class. There's nothing special about it
>except that applications can treat it specially because
>they know its name.

That isnt what the M&S says. It is quite clear on the point that Alt 
has a disjunctive interpretation. I agree that this was a crock, but 
I think it is what the M&S says (in contast to the 'bag' 
interpretations you note.)

But by all means lets erase it from anything said publicly in the 
name of the WG.

Pat


>If
>
>	_:something :relatedTo _:C.
>	_:C rdf:type rdf:Alt.
>	_:C rdf:_1 _:x.
>	_:C rdf:_2 _:y.
>
>then we neither license
>
>	_:something :relatedTo _:x.
>
>nor
>
>	_:something :relatedTo _:y.
>
>
>This is similar to the situation where folks assume that
>
>	_:something dc:creator _:C.
>	_:C a rdf:Bag.
>	_:C rdf:_1 _:Kernighan.
>	_:C rdf:_2 _:Ritchie.
>
>entails
>
>	_:something dc:creator _:Kernighan.
>
>But it doesn't. Documentation for the dc:creator property
>might say that *for that property* the above inference
>is licensed. But it's not a feature of the RDF core language.
>
>Similarly for rdf:Alt.
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2001 19:13:50 UTC