Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax

From: Pat Hayes (
Date: 12/04/01

>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.

OK, I have got this now. Sorry I was slow. But I'm not convinced that 
they *prevent* the entailments, if 'entailment' is defined properly.

>  > 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.

Right. But we ought to be able to just get round this by defining a 
semantic extension to RDF, ie a notion of DAML+OIL-entailment in RDF 
which treats the syntactic encoding appropriately. It won't look much 
like RDF entailment, to be sure, but I think it could be described in 
terms of operations on RDF triples; not all of them RDF-valid, of 
course, but one cannot expect miracles. The relevant notion of 
'closure' would add all the permutations of syntactically ordered but 
semantically unordered things, for example. In this way DAML+OIL 
would be an extension to RDFS in the same kind of way that RDFS is an 
extension to RDF. This would imply that any DAML+OIL-savvy RDF engine 
would have to be able to recognize the triples that were to be 
treated specially, of course; but that is hardly news, right?

I may still be missing something vital in your argument: if so, please say so.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

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