From: Lynn Andrea Stein (las@ai.mit.edu)
Date: 01/11/01
Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > From: Lynn Andrea Stein <las@ai.mit.edu> > Subject: Semantics questions > Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:16:45 -0500 (EST) > > > These comments are based on > > http://www.daml.org/2000/12/semantics.html, which may not be the > > current version. Also, I'm not entirely sure what forum this should > > go to, so my apologies if this is too narrowly sent; you may freely > > forward it to a more appropriate forum. > > > > I have some questions about the relationships between IC, IR, and IO. > > It seems clear to me that for this semantics to pertain to > > DAML-in-RDF, the domains of these three functions cannot be disjoint. > > (As I understand it, classes, restrictions, and relationships are all > > individuals in RDF.) > > The domains of IC, IR, and IO are not disjoint. I find that this is > unfortunate, but this is the way things are. :-( I dunno; I think it makes more sense this way, but clearly this is an aesthetic issue. (Possible paradoxes notwithstanding.) > > > Thus, it seems to me that equivalentTo constrains not just IC but also > > IO. > > > > Also, if samePropertyAs is supposed to be a subPropertyOf > > equivalentTo, equivalentTo ought to constrain IR as well. > > Actually, equivalentTo has to be semantics-free. I have changed the > semantics document accordingly. I don't see how this follows. Wouldn't it make as much sense to change subPropertyOf? Lynn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST