Class warfare: rdfs: vs. daml:

From: Pat Hayes (
Date: 11/05/01

I noticed on rdf-logic recently some remarks concerning the fact that 
DAML-S uses rdfs:Class and rdfs:Property rather than the 
daml:-prefixed versions, and how this is both troublesome, and going 
to be corrected in future versions of DAML-S.

However, I would like to suggest a rather more radical solution, 
which is that we should simply declare that (in DAML+OIL), daml:Class 
and daml:Property are equivalent to  rdfs:Class and rdfs:Property, so 
that a conforming engine is required to treat them synonymously. As 
far as I can see, there is no model-theoretic reason not do this, and 
since the pragmatic benefits of a tighter integration seem obvious, 
why do we maintain this rather snooty stance of insisting that *our* 
classes are somehow different from *their* classes ? Of course, you 
can say more about them in DAML+OIL than you can in RDFS, but they 
are still the same *things*. As Robert Burns might have said: a set's 
a set, for a'that.

Pat Hayes

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

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