- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 30 May 2002 09:05:20 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, danbri@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 08:28, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > Subject: Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding > Date: 29 May 2002 20:27:11 -0500 > > > On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 23:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > [...] > > > > But according to your rules, any method of providing meaning for this > > > extension is adequate. > > > > No, only those that are monotonic. i.e. when you specify an extension, > > you can only throw out models; you can't put any back in. > > > > > OK, the method that I will use is that it means > > > what I mean it to mean. > > > > So long as it's monotonic, then you haven't provided an example > > that ... > > Suppose we have > > <ex:John> <ex:loves> <ex:Mary> . > > <_:s1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > <_:s1> <rdf:subject> <var:?x> . > <_:s1> <rdf:predicate> <ex:loves> . > <_:s1> <rdf:object> <var:?y> . > > <_:s2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > <_:s2> <rdf:subject> <var:?a> . > <_:s2> <rdf:predicate> <var:?b> . > <_:s2> <rdf:object> <var:?c> . > > <_:s1> <log:implies> <_:s2> . > > The non-RDF part of this document, i.e., the meaning of log:implies as a > form of logical implication, completely changes the meaning of foo:loves. No, there are no more models in a theory that include a specification of log:implies than there are in a theory that just treats log:implies as a plain RDF predicate. I'm not sure what you mean by "the meaning of <a term>", nor "completely changes the meaning of <a term>". Going back a bit to your message of 23 May 2002 20:14:13 -0400, you said: PFPS> so the partial understanding may not be related to the ``real'' PFPS> meaning in any worthwhile fashion. to which I replied, 23 May 2002 22:08:16 -0500: DC> it's monotonic, in that the more you understand, the fewer DC> interpretations are models. You can't rule out models by DC> failing to understand something. The example above is not a counterexample of this claim that partial understanding is monotonic. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 10:05:47 UTC