Re: Class warfare: rdfs: vs. daml:

From: Pat Hayes (
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?

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