From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/06/01
On November 5, Pat Hayes writes: > > 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. Didn't we just decide that daml:Class isn't the same as rdfs:Class because a daml:Class cannot have a literal in its extension? Ian > > 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