From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 01/11/01
To what? Their current meaning seems about right. peter From: Lynn Andrea Stein <las@ai.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Semantics questions Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:32:40 -0500 (EST) > Sorry, hand is quicker than the brain. I meant why don't we change > samePropertyAs and sameClassAs, NOT subPropertyOf. > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > > From: Lynn Andrea Stein <las@ai.mit.edu> > > Subject: Re: Semantics questions > > Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:47:43 -0500 (EST) > > > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > > > > From: Lynn Andrea Stein <las@ai.mit.edu> > > > > Subject: Semantics questions > > > > Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:16:45 -0500 (EST) > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Lynn > > > > Any other avenue changes the meaning of samePropertyAs and sameClassAs. > > > > peter > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST