From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
Date: 11/05/01
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.
Pat Hayes
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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