# [sc34wg3] TR: comment - RDFTM: Survey of Interoperability Proposals

**Robert Barta
**
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org

*Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:16:32 +1000*

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:36:00PM +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>* | It is the field of mathematical logic (including set theory and
*>* | others) that provides the tools by which we may create model
*>* | theories.
*>*
*>* Correct. \Tau doesn't use mathematical logic, nor model theory,
*>* however. Hence my suspicion that \Tau wouldn't satisfy
*>* Patel-Schneider's requirements.
*
The models themselves, so what the potential structures of maps are,
these are defined via sets. There is no logic involved; maps - by
themselves - do not mean anything.
The _operators_ on these structures are defined _using_ first order
logic. But the operators (moving through the map) themselves are not
regarded as logic. I think.
Path expressions like "give me all association in the map m which are
an instance of 'is-part-of'"
m [ \pi -> class = is-part-of ]
are evaluated on the model. Either they return something (TRUE) or not
(FALSE). Path expressions are logic formulas and the path language is
a logic _tailored_ for TMs.
So, this looks like classical model theory to me (but I am not an
expert).
No doubt, it would be interesting to analyze how path expressions are
related to DL, CL, ... For some ideas, see the last section in
http://topicmaps.it.bond.edu.au/docs/30/toc
\rho