From: Jeff Heflin (heflin@cs.umd.edu)
Date: 01/16/01
Just off the top of my head, what if we modified the model-theoretic semantics so that: <equivalentTo, ?O, ?P> IO(?O) = IO(?P) <sameClassAs, ?C, ?D> IO(?C) = IO(?D) and IC(?C) = IC(?D) <samePropertyAs, ?R, ?S> IO(?R) = IO(?S) and IR(?R) = IR(?S) This would say that equivalentTo establishes equivalence between resources, with subproperties that specify additional meaning for resources that are classes and properties. This fits with RDF's notion that classes and properties are also elements of your domain of discourse, while preserving the notion of sameClassAs and samePropertyAs being subproperties of equivalentTo. One potential flaw in these semantics is that <equivalentTo,X,Y> where X and Y are classes does not mean the same thing as <sameClassAs,X,Y>. If there were subsets of DD, lets say Classes and Props, that identify which individuals are classes and which are properties, then maybe we could say something like: <equivalentTo, ?O, ?P> IO(?O) = IO(?P), if ?O and ?P in Classes then IC(?O)=IC(?P) if ?O and ?P in Props then IR(?O)=IR(?P) or alternatively, we could simply add the following general rules to our semantics: IO(?C) = IO(?D) and ?C,?D in Classes iff IC(?C) = IC(?D) IO(?R) = IO(?S) and ?R,?S in Props iff IR(?R) = IR(?S) Jeff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST