- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 30 May 2002 16:10:35 -0500
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
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" are a constraint on the semantic domain, no? 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 > You may remember that the > axiomatic definition had to be modified a few times to take care of these > subtle points. > > [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 18:41:29 UTC