- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:59:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: [closed] pfps-03 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 21:29:04 -0500 > Peter > > re. your comment > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0092.html > recorded as pfps-03: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-03 > The WG has decided not to accept this comment; > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html > on the grounds that the appendix is informative (for a certain class > of readers), and the document states > [[ > "The editor believes that both of these descriptions, and also the closure > rules described in section 4, are all in exact correspondence, but only the > directly described model theory in sections 1- 3 should be taken as > normative." > ]] > The WG also noted that the 'axiomatic semantics' for DAML was widely > used and cited as a useful account of the semantics of that language, > and that the appendix in question serves a similar role. > > Please respond to this message, CCing to www-rdf-comments@w3.org, to > say whether you find this response satisfactory. > > Pat Hayes I do not view this response as satisfactory in any way. The sentence that you quote is completely inadequate for providing any reasonable connection between the RDF semantics and the translation to LBase. I note that there is an ``exact correspondence'' between the model theory and the LBase translation, namely that induced by the translation, but, of course, this does not indicate that the correspondence has any useful properties, such as preserving satisfiability, validity, or entailment. I definitely agree that the situation here is similar to the situation with respect to the DAML+OIL ``axiomatic semantics''. There is no sharp definition of the connection between the ``axiomatic semantics'' and the model theory for DAML+OIL. I view this as a serious deficiency in DAML+OIL, one that would have had to be fixed before DAML+OIL was finished. (This did not happen, as the further development of DAML+OIL was terminated in favour of work on OWL.) I view the current status of the translation to LBase as without purpose, and thus unsupportable. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 08:59:44 UTC