- From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:43:13 -0400
- To: lacher@db.stanford.edu
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, em@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, gdm@empolis.co.uk
Ok, then my apologies. It seemed as though there was no common model, that is, a third model: the fusion of two models the user understood. So implicitly the semantic mapping was already done in the user's head. Leo Martin Lacher wrote: > > > I have to agree with Peter on this. I really can't understand the > > alternative. Unless you really do formalize a third representation > > language which attempts to "preserve" the semantics of the mappings > > between your other two languages (say, with a notion of the formal > > properties represented and preserved on each side through those > > "mappings" or morphisms), then you are spinning in air. Semantic > > interoperability or semantic "mapping" requires a commensurate > > language/model. How else can it work? Modeling the semantics of a model > > in the syntax of another model just can't work. You need to preserve the > > semantics of the original model when you translate it into the syntax of > > the other model (or approximate it to a greater or lesser degree of > > possible formalization). > > Leo, > > Thank you for comments. > We had a much more modest goal: to enable a user to query two information > source the data models of which she understands. > > Martin -- _____________________________________________ Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640 Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 19:44:24 UTC