From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
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 phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST