From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 03/06/01
Thanks for the comments. Here are my responses for the semantics document.
From: Jeff Heflin <[email protected]>
Subject: A few comments on the new DAML-OIL spec
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:40:51 -0500
> model-theoretic-semantics.html:
> -------------------------------
> 1) The text switches into teletype mode during the sentence "The IR
> mapping maps abstract properties into subsets of AD x AD and datatype
> properties into subsets of AD x DD." and stays that way for the rest of
> the document. I assume a missing </tt> tag is the culprit.
Probably. I'm waiting for a CVS account to fix this.
> 2) The document says "A method for asserting the equality and inequality
> of individuals would be helpful." Why can't equivalentTo be used to
> assert the equality of two individuals?
It probably could be. Shall we officially bless equivalentTo for this
purpose? However, this would still not solve inequality.
> 3) To return to an old debate, is it really necessary to express the
> semantics for AbstractProperties and DatatypeProeperties separately? For
> example, the document has:
>
> [...]
Unfortunately, this could allow for restrictions to creep into the ``grey''
properties. Even if this is syntactically allowed, I would agitate for
retaining the current semantic definitions.
> Jeff
peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST