Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:54:26 -0400

Message-Id: <20020530175426B.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
```
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory
Date: 30 May 2002 16:10:35 -0500

> On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 16:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: layering (5.3,5.10): a same-syntax model theory
> > Date: 30 May 2002 15:16:19 -0500
> >
> > > On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 14:37, patrick hayes wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Whoa. If this  really is a same-syntax extension then in order for
> > > > this to be meaningful you need to show how recursion can be expressed
> > > > in RDF (good luck).
> > >
> > > Huh? In the DAML+OIL model theory, the prose appeals
> > > to all sorts of traditional set theoretic notions
> > > when expressing constraints on interpretations...
> > > it uses stuff like |{...}| to denote the
> > > cardinality of sets and such.
> >
> > Yes, but the DAML+OIL model theory conditions work on the n-triples, i.e.,
> > on the syntax, where things are much nicer.
>
> Now I'm confused; the stuff in the "Semantic Constraint"

Yes, but the stuff in the other column is syntactic.

> The example I gave is from that column:
>
>   x in IC(?R) iff IR(?P)({x}) <= IC(?C)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-model-20011218#3

But both parts are semantic in your conditions, which is very different.

>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>

peter
```
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 18:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:30 UTC