From: Ian Horrocks ([email protected])
Date: 11/06/01
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?
Ian
>
> 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