Re: Some questions/comments on the DAML draft (no operators)

From: pat hayes (
Date: 10/16/00

  • Next message: Brandon Amundson: "Call for Papers Non-member submission from []"
    >pat hayes wrote:
    > >
    > > >In what way is
    > > >       The class C is the disjoint union of the classes
    > > >       in the list L.
    > > >not an assertion?
    > > >
    > > That is an assertion, but according to your specs "the disjoint union
    > > of the classes in the list L" has to be an assertion as well (since
    > > it can be false).
    >Which part of the spec suggests that?
    This conversation began when I asked you what the value of 
    disjointUnion was when its argument class was not disjoint, and you 
    said it was false.
    ><Class ID="C">
    > <disjointUnionOf resource="#L"/>
    >is an assertion; in English, see above. In KIF, it would
    >	(disjoinUnionOf C L)
    >but *not*
    >	(= C (disjointUnionOf L))
      (As a side comment, the notation seems even more brain-damaged with 
    this reading, but let that pass.)
    >There are no operators,
    >expressions, or anything like that, anywhere in RDF.
    >There just aren't.
    Ah, I get the idea. Indeed I had been misreading this as "C is the 
    disjoint union of L", and assuming that an expression like 
    <disjointUnionOf resource="#L"/> was itself well-formed.
    OK, let me express my question in a different way. Suppose I say
      <Class ID="C"><disjointUnionOf resource="#L"/> </Class>
    and L is not in fact pairwise disjoint, so this is false. Now, (1) 
    have I asserted a falsehood, ie are my assertions inconsistent? Or 
    have I simply not said anything? (2) What, if anything, follows about 
    the value of C?
    Pat Hayes
    IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
    40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
    Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/02 EST