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