Re: A few comments on the new DAML-OIL spec

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 03/06/01

Thanks for the comments.  Here are my responses for the semantics document.

From: Jeff Heflin <>
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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST