From: pat hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 03/21/01
I have some questions about the walk-through (Im drafting a number of changes to the English, but I noticed this on the way:) 1. The document says Note that this (imports) tag is an empty element; the same tag starts and ends the element, denoted by the trailing "/" just before the closing ">". but in fact there is no / just before the closing > in that tag. 2. I think we should abandon the usage 'abstract class' , and in fact the entire notion of data being 'abstract'. It is very odd to read that the class of animals is an 'abstract class'. (Tell that to my cat.) 3. The document says: -------------------------------------- <daml:Class rdf:ID="Animal"> This asserts that there is an abstract class known as Animal. It doesn't say anything else about animal other than specifying an identifier. It is also not (necessarily) the sole source of information about Animals; we will see below how we can add to a definition made elsewhere. However, by saying that its ID is Animal, we make it possible for others to refer to the definition of Animal we're giving here. (This is done using the uri of the containing page followed by #Animal.) <rdfs:label>Animal</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> This class of animals is illustrative of a number of ontological idioms. </rdfs:comment> These two lines introduce a label -- a brief identifier of the enclosing element, suitable for graphical representations of RDF, etc. -- and a comment -- a natural language (English, in this case) description of the element within which it is included. Neither a label nor a comment contributes to the logical interpretation of the language. -------------------------------------- Question: since we have rdf:ID="Animal" in the opening tag, why do we need to say that the rdfs:label is also "Animal" ? This seems redundant. Which of these two is the one that actually attaches the name 'Animal' to the class for purposes of #-subscripting? Or must one write both? (If so that is DUMB.) If it is not redundant (for some reason connected with the rdf/rdfs distinction which is opaque to me) could the rdf:ID and the rdfs:label be different? If so, we should actually have them as being different in the example, to make the point. If not, we should say something about whatever the brain-damaged reason is for having to say the same thing twice. Either way it isn't good enough to just say that the label 'makes it possible for others to refer', since the rdf:ID does that already. More later. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST