- From: Richard Fikes <fikes@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:16:30 -0800
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, connolly@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> You mentioned that the semantics for KIF 'holds' means that anything of > the form (holds ?x ?x) must be false for ?x. However, the documents > referenced by the Axiomatic Semantics paper (which appear to be the > definitive documents on KIF) do not provide any semantics for this > predicate. I addressed the issue of the missing semantics for "holds" in my earlier message to you as follows: > Regarding "holds". You are right that the semantics for "holds" is not > in the documents referenced on the current KIF Web site. I just > discovered that omission this afternoon. I have not been involved in > the KIF standardization effort recently and so do not know why the > semantics for "holds" was not included in the current documents. Those > semantics were in section 8.3 of the original KIF specification > (available at http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-92-86.html) > and, as you mentioned, are obvious. Namely: > > Given an interpretation I and a variable assignment V, the truth value > with respect to I and V of a sentence of the form "(holds P T1 ... Tn)" > is true if and only if the relation denoted by the semantic value with > respect to I and V of P is true of the objects denoted by the semantic > value with respect to I and V of each of the arguments T1 ... Tn. > > I will contact Genesereth to determine what if any rationale there was > for not including the semantics of "holds" in the current KIF documents. Richard
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 18:16:22 UTC