Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax

On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 12:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: UPDATE: initial message concerning syntax
> Date: 14 Dec 2001 11:57:47 -0600
> 
> > On Fri, 2001-12-14 at 11:43, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Because that is how it should work.  Do you really want SWOL entailment to
> > > be different from RDF entailment on RDF documents?
> > 
> > Yes; I expect the SWOL semantics to make more conclusions valid.
> 
> Name some.

	C intersectionOf L
	L first A
	L rest L2
	L2 first B
	L2 rest nil
	x type C
SWOL-entails
	x type A


> > > > I'd say SWOL entailment reduces to FOL entailment (less
> > > > the excluded middle).
> > > 
> > > SWOL entailment does exclude the middle.
> > 
> > Er... argument by assertion. I can do that too:
> > No, it does not.
> 
> I'm not making an argument by assertion, just stating a simple fact that
> can easily be determined from a quick perusal of the appropriate documents.

The word "middle" doesn't occur in
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/model-theoretic-semantics.html

I assume that's the the document you were talking about.
The text of that document is sufficiently dense that
I don't get much out of a quick perusal. I'd appreciate
if you'd point out where it says that DAML+OIL
excludes the middle.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 13:43:17 UTC