From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 11/30/01
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:56:39 -0600 > >From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> > >Subject: Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax > >Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:44:07 -0600 > > [...] > > > >The above constructs are DAML+OIL syntax and should not generate > >relationships in the model theory. For example (using a much nicer syntax) > > > > (unionOf a (intersectionOf b c)) > > > >should not result in a unionOf relationship in the model theory. > > What should the MT say about it, then? That it refers to George W. Bush? The MT should say that the extension of this is the union of the extension (CEXT) of a and the intersection of the extensions (CEXT) of b and c. There should not be unionOf or intersectionOf or any argument-syntax relationships in the MT, because all that is syntax, unless there is some way of getting the MT to produce the correct entailments in their presence. I don't know of any way to recover the correct entailments in the presence of syntax relationships. Perhaps others do. If so, please speak up now. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST