From: Jim Hendler (jhendler@darpa.mil)
Date: 03/22/01
I guess I would suggest looking at the usage of equivalento -- and particularly I would want Jeff Heflin to weigh in on this issue because he uses it extensively in his ontologies, which are currently among the most used in the DAML repository. He does a lot of this sort of thing (from http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/DAML/onts/personal1.0.daml ><Property ID="addressCity"> > <equivalentTo >resource="http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/DAML/onts/general1.0.dam >l#addressCity" /> ></Property> > ><Property ID="emailAddress"> > <equivalentTo >resource="http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/DAML/onts/general1.0.dam >l#emailAddress" /> ></Property> which lets him create new ontologies that explicitly refer to old ones and then extend them. This has been useful in usage of SHOE. Jeff, perhaps you can comment on this issue. Also, although I shudder to mention this, on rdfig (see http://rdfig.xmlhack.com) the term from DAML they're all most interested in is "equivalentTO" precisely because it maps to its English equivalent so well. I suspect we should just keep things the way they are -- The semantics of equivalentto can be defined such that making things of different category (i.e. class, property, individual, etc.) equivalentto is not allowed (I.e. if I say damloil:equivalentTO #pfps daml:person) the DAML+OIL validator should come back and complain (bitterly) -JH Dr. James Hendler jhendler@darpa.mil Chief Scientist, DARPA/ISO 703-696-2238 (phone) 3701 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-696-2201 (Fax) Arlington, VA 22203 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST