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
> >
> >
> >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.


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