From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
Date: 11/07/01
>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?
I sent this message out before the telecon. However, it seems to me
that even with this restriction,
daml:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class .
Do you agree?
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
[email protected]
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST