From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 11/30/01
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:46:24 -0600 [...] > I expect the "obvious extra semantic condintions" includes > an axiom of pairs, ala > > (forall (?f ?r) > (=> (list ?r) ((exist (?l) (and (first ?l ?f) (rest ?l ?r))))) [...] > > Solution: > > > > It does not entail. > > > > There are interpretations that satisfy the first knowledge base where the > > denotation of a is not in any list, > > not if we include an axiom of pairs ala the above. You would need to include all DAML+OIL syntax in every interpretation, i.e., unionOf for every list of classes, ..... I'm uncertain if this approach would work. However, even if it would, I have severe reservations. I liken it to a mechanism for including disjunction in RDF that would work something like. 1/ interpretations include all possible lists 3/ for every list that looks a formula, l, < l , IS(rdfb:true) > in IEXT(IS(rdf:type)) iff the formula is satisfied in the interpretation 3/ list syntax denotes the appropriate list That is the interpretation of [OR [p1 s1 o1] [p2 s2 p2] [p3 s3 o3]] is in the class extension of rdfb:true if and only if either <IS(s1),IS(o1)> in IEXT(IS(p1), or <IS(s2),IS(o2)> in IEXT(IS(p2), or <IS(s3),IS(o2)> in IEXT(IS(p3) peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST