Re: new model theory for DAML+OIL

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 10/09/01

From: Pat Hayes <>
Subject: Re: new model theory for DAML+OIL
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:37:59 -0500

> Well, its pretty much required by Tarski, seems to me. We can wriggle 
> around it by being very persnickety about exactly what counts as 
> 'really' being syntax, but isn't it the case that somehow,  something 
> has to be able to distinguish the '5' that is an age from the '5' 
> that is an address, and that whatever it is that that process is 
> accessing could be regarded as part of the 'syntax' of the literal 
> for semantic purposes? Seems to me that we could simply adopt this as 
> a kind of basic semantic-methodological principle to help us decide 
> what counts as part of the 'logical syntax'. We need some help 
> keeping all these metadata-ish layers straight in any case.
> Pat

I do tend to agree with you on this, and, if there were no other
constraints, I would be quite happy with ``true literals''.  However, I do
think that there is considerable usage of/formalism in RDF and XML Schema that
requires a looser view of the meaning of


I am trying to come up with a model theory that can capture this looser
view of ``literals'', a.k.a. character data, a.k.a. datatypes.


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