Re: Semantics questions

From: Lynn Andrea Stein (
Date: 01/11/01

Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
> From: Lynn Andrea Stein <>
> Subject: Semantics questions
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:16:45 -0500 (EST)
> > These comments are based on
> >, which may not be the
> > current version.  Also, I'm not entirely sure what forum this should
> > go to, so my apologies if this is too narrowly sent; you may freely
> > forward it to a more appropriate forum.
> > 
> > I have some questions about the relationships between IC, IR, and IO.
> > It seems clear to me that for this semantics to pertain to
> > DAML-in-RDF, the domains of these three functions cannot be disjoint.
> > (As I understand it, classes, restrictions, and relationships are all
> > individuals in RDF.) 
> The domains of IC, IR, and IO are not disjoint.  I find that this is
> unfortunate, but this is the way things are.  :-(

I dunno; I think it makes more sense this way, but clearly this is an
aesthetic issue.  (Possible paradoxes notwithstanding.)

> > Thus, it seems to me that equivalentTo constrains not just IC but also
> > IO.
> >
> > Also, if samePropertyAs is supposed to be a subPropertyOf
> > equivalentTo, equivalentTo ought to constrain IR as well.
> Actually, equivalentTo has to be semantics-free.  I have changed the
> semantics document accordingly.

I don't see how this follows.  Wouldn't it make as much sense to
change subPropertyOf?


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