Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 11/30/01

From: Pat Hayes <>
Subject: Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:56:39 -0600

> >From: Pat Hayes <>
> >Subject: Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax
> >Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:44:07 -0600


> I must be getting old, or something. I really do not follow you. Are 
> you saying that A does NOT entail B??

The problem here is that everything in DAML+OIL is triples, even
the stuff that really should be syntax.  All these triples end up in the
interpretations, thus preventing the appropriate entailments.

> If we don't have any relationships in the model theory, how will we 
> entail ANYTHING?

There are lots of entailments, it is just that you end up with too few,
because the syntax triples pollute the interpretations.

The situation is exactly the same as for encoding propositional logic in
RDF, of course.  The syntax has to be triples, which then end up in the
model theory.  In the simplest case


does not entail


because of the ordering of the disjuncts.  (Provided that you use an
ordered representation of the arguments, of course.)

> Pat


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