From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
Date: 11/29/01
>Here is a technical challenge.
>
>Is it possible to layer a model theory for DAML+OIL on top of a model
>theory for RDF?
Er...yes?. The answer seems obvious, which makes me suspect that
there is a trap lurking here.
> What would this mean?
That the MT for DAML+OIL would assign the same meaning to the RDF(S)
subset of DAML+OIL as the RDF MT assigns to it, at a minimum.
> How would it work?
Rather like the current MT for DAML, but re-stated using explicit
extension mappings for classes and properties.
>Note that the current model theory for DAML+OIL is *not* layered on top of
>a model theory for RDF.
I don't think it would be more than a simple exercise in
transcription. I have always assumed that we could do this when
required. (Hopefully it could be phrased so that DAML+OIL could be
seen as a 'semantic extension' to the RDF MT, by imposing semantic
conditions on the daml: reserved vocabulary, with a corresponding
set of closure rules; but that might be overly ambitious.)
If you like I will try to have a draft in a few days (when I catch up
with my overdue WG work.)
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
[email protected]
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST