W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: declaredAs

From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:16:24 -0700
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MGEEIEEKKOMOLNHJAHMKCEIPEFAA.jmcclure@hypergrove.com>

Interesting. If there is no difference in the semantics, then why was rdf:ID
created in the first place?Why is it necessary to have this declaredAs if there
is no difference, whose function appears to be to differentiate? Seems pretty
*darn* (smile) clear to me that rdf:ID functionally duplicates XML ID and is
hence a declaration because it'd be dumb to have multiple definitions for
something in the same *context*, a concept enforced by XML ID.  Anyway what do
you think a model would look like that contains Statement, Assertion &
Declaration classes -- surely you're not saying that such a model would be
senseless to consider or build!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us]
>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 1:58 PM
>To: John McClure
>Cc: Bijan Parsia; Owl Dev
>Subject: RE: declaredAs
>>>But rdf:ID doesn't get you *any sort of
>>>declaration*. It's *just a funny way of making an assertion*.
>>Nope, I don't agree -- I don't see this in the specs anywhere.
>Well, the RDF specs say explicitly that RDF consists entirely of
>assertions, they give a normative semantics which defines the
>assertions, and they do not mention declarations anywhere. Seems
>pretty damn clear to me.
>Pat Hayes
>IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
>Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
>FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 10 August 2007 22:16:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC