- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:37:00 -0400
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: semantics of daml:equivalentTo [was: Comments on Annotated DAML 1.6] Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:00:45 -0500 > >From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cs.umd.edu> > >Subject: Re: semantics of daml:equivalentTo [was: Comments on > >Annotated DAML 1.6] > >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:29:56 -0400 > > > > > I'd just like to elaborate on Jim's message. I believe that equivalentTo > > > is the DAML version of the SHOE <DEF-RENAME> element. In SHOE, > > > DEF-RENAME allows an ontology to provide an alias for a term defined > > > elsewhere. Essentially, it means that both terms reference the same > > > concept, and thus any assertion that is made using one term is also true > > > if the other term was substituted in its place. This is really easy to > > > implement: you keep a hash table that matches aliases with the base > > > terms (used in the original definitions) that they renamed, and upon > > > parsing a document or issuing a query you can perform the necessary > > > substitutions to rephrase it in only base terms. > > > Jeff > There is > a reasonably well-defined meaning for equality (=identity = > equivalence) which is pretty much what Jeff says above: it means that > the terms refer to the same thing. So to assert > equivalentTo(X, Y) > is to claim that X and Y have the same denotation. Now, this in turn > is just as clear or as murky as the notion of denotation is for X and > Y. > > Pat Hayes It is my belief that Jeff's belief is that equivalentTO should be much more like the other option I outlined, namely that X is given the definition that Y has and that X can have no other definition. peter
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 13:38:03 UTC