From: pat hayes ([email protected])
Date: 03/21/01
I have some questions about the walk-through (Im drafting a number of
changes to the English, but I noticed this on the way:)
1. The document says
Note that this (imports) tag is an empty element; the same tag starts
and ends the element, denoted by the trailing "/" just before the
closing ">".
but in fact there is no / just before the closing > in that tag.
2. I think we should abandon the usage 'abstract class' , and in fact
the entire notion of data being 'abstract'. It is very odd to read
that the class of animals is an 'abstract class'. (Tell that to my
cat.)
3. The document says:
--------------------------------------
<daml:Class rdf:ID="Animal">
This asserts that there is an abstract class known as Animal. It
doesn't say anything else about animal other than specifying an
identifier. It is also not
(necessarily) the sole source of information about Animals; we will
see below how we can add to a definition made elsewhere.
However, by saying that its ID is Animal, we make it possible for
others to refer to the definition of Animal we're giving here. (This
is done using the uri of
the containing page followed by #Animal.)
<rdfs:label>Animal</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment>
This class of animals is illustrative of a number of ontological idioms.
</rdfs:comment>
These two lines introduce a label -- a brief identifier of the
enclosing element, suitable for graphical representations of RDF,
etc. -- and a comment -- a natural
language (English, in this case) description of the element within
which it is included. Neither a label nor a comment contributes to
the logical interpretation of
the language.
--------------------------------------
Question: since we have rdf:ID="Animal" in the opening tag, why do we
need to say that the rdfs:label is also "Animal" ? This seems
redundant. Which of these two is the one that actually attaches the
name 'Animal' to the class for purposes of #-subscripting? Or must
one write both? (If so that is DUMB.) If it is not redundant (for
some reason connected with the rdf/rdfs distinction which is opaque
to me) could the rdf:ID and the rdfs:label be different? If so, we
should actually have them as being different in the example, to make
the point. If not, we should say something about whatever the
brain-damaged reason is for having to say the same thing twice.
Either way it isn't good enough to just say that the label 'makes it
possible for others to refer', since the rdf:ID does that already.
More later.
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