Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 01/09/01

• Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)"
• Previous message: Deborah Mcguinness: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today"
• In reply to: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon today"
• Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)"
• Reply: Dan Connolly: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

As promised, I have a new version of the semantics for DAML+OIL.  It is
enclosed below.

The ONLY substantive changes are the last two lines, which read

	<domain,?P,?C>	if <x,y> in IR(?P) then x in IC(?C)
	<range,?P,?C>	if <x,y> in IR(?P) then y in IC(?C)

NOTE:  This does not correspond to the current RDFS intended meaning for
these constructs.

• Text/Html attachment: semantics.html

• Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)"
• Previous message: Deborah Mcguinness: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today"
• In reply to: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon today"
• Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)"
• Reply: Dan Connolly: "Re: Joint Committee telecon today (semantics for domain and range)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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