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

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