From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 01/07/01
Hi, Last week we discussed the issue of whether daml+oil should reflect RDFS as it is or RDFS as we would like it to be/believe it will be. In this regard, I mentioned that if we don't take the acyclicity of subClass seriously, we could strengthen the statements about equivalent names in the daml+oil namespace. e.g., instead of saying just: <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Literal"> <sameClassAs rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/> </rdfs:Class> we could add: <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"> <sameClassAs rdf:resource="#Literal"/> </rdfs:Class> or perhaps: <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#Literal"/> </rdfs:Class> In other words, we can assert subClass/property in both directions. Having thought some more about this, I can't really see the benefit and so I am not sure that we should do it. It doesn't help daml+oil-aware processes as they already understand the semantics of the sameClassAs property, and it will only help RDFS-aware processes if they are smart enough to work out that two subs make an equivalent. It might be more likely to confuse/crash RDFS processes. Perhaps we could briefly (re)discuss this on Tuesday before I make any changes. Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST