From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 03/06/01
Thanks for the comments. Here are my responses for the semantics document. From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cs.umd.edu> Subject: A few comments on the new DAML-OIL spec Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:40:51 -0500 > model-theoretic-semantics.html: > ------------------------------- > 1) The text switches into teletype mode during the sentence "The IR > mapping maps abstract properties into subsets of AD x AD and datatype > properties into subsets of AD x DD." and stays that way for the rest of > the document. I assume a missing </tt> tag is the culprit. Probably. I'm waiting for a CVS account to fix this. > 2) The document says "A method for asserting the equality and inequality > of individuals would be helpful." Why can't equivalentTo be used to > assert the equality of two individuals? It probably could be. Shall we officially bless equivalentTo for this purpose? However, this would still not solve inequality. > 3) To return to an old debate, is it really necessary to express the > semantics for AbstractProperties and DatatypeProeperties separately? For > example, the document has: > > [...] Unfortunately, this could allow for restrictions to creep into the ``grey'' properties. Even if this is syntactically allowed, I would agitate for retaining the current semantic definitions. > Jeff peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST