From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 01/16/01
I agree with Jim that a good way to go is to have a language construct that asserts equality/inequality. peter From: Jim Hendler <jhendler@darpa.mil> Subject: Re: problems with DAML+OIL Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:10:26 -0500 > At 9:55 -0500 1/12/01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >[I expect that I will also send this out to rdf-logic (possibly modified), > >but I wanted to send it to the committee now, and I can't send it to > >rdf-logic until DAML+OIL is released. peter] > > > Folks- language is announced - go for it! > > > > > > >OK, now that there is a DAML+OIL release, it is time to try to put a > >spanner in the works. (Not that it is time to sabotage the release, it is > >just that it is now time to see what problems remain, so that the next > >release can fix them.) I expect that this list is not complete! > > > > > >Problem 1: The lack of a theory of identity (or equality, or equivalence) > > > > I agree with Peter that this is important, and that we need it. > However, I wonder if the correct solution isn't a langauge feature to > allow it to be said -- we have the ability to say things are the same > class or same property -- why not a similar explicit construct for > same entity? I wanted to ask this here, rather than on rdf-logic, > because it is likely I am missing something, and figured I'd rather > get beaten up in private, rather than in public > thanks > JH > > Prof. James Hendler Program Manager > DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) > 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) > Arlington, VA 22203 jhendler@darpa.mil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST