Re: Class warfare: rdfs: vs. daml:

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