Re: DAML+OIL semantics from Jim Farrugia on 2002-08-13 (www-rdf-logic@w3.org from August 2002)

From: Jim Farrugia <jim@spatial.maine.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:43:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.1020813104149.3805D-100000@nasa.spatial.maine.edu>

Peter,

Second short one.

Jim


JF:    Would anyone from the DAML+OIL community have agreed to offer
       offer up DAML+OIL with only the axiomatic semantics, or only the
       model-theoretic semantics?  From what you suggest above, I'm guessing
       that DAML+OIL wouldn't have been offered up without a model-theoretic
       semantics (since then you wouldn't have been able to address soundness
       or completeness), but I can't guess whether it might have been
       offered up without an axiomatic semantics.

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 10:50:54 UTC