From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 11/29/01
>Here is a technical challenge. > >Is it possible to layer a model theory for DAML+OIL on top of a model >theory for RDF? Er...yes?. The answer seems obvious, which makes me suspect that there is a trap lurking here. > What would this mean? That the MT for DAML+OIL would assign the same meaning to the RDF(S) subset of DAML+OIL as the RDF MT assigns to it, at a minimum. > How would it work? Rather like the current MT for DAML, but re-stated using explicit extension mappings for classes and properties. >Note that the current model theory for DAML+OIL is *not* layered on top of >a model theory for RDF. I don't think it would be more than a simple exercise in transcription. I have always assumed that we could do this when required. (Hopefully it could be phrased so that DAML+OIL could be seen as a 'semantic extension' to the RDF MT, by imposing semantic conditions on the daml: reserved vocabulary, with a corresponding set of closure rules; but that might be overly ambitious.) If you like I will try to have a draft in a few days (when I catch up with my overdue WG work.) Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST