- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:36:35 -0700
- To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: rector@cs.man.ac.uk, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Chris, > Finally, and importantly, OO subclass is NOT subsumption, which was > precisely my point. It is almost subsumption, but there is this > subtle difference. This is what the note needs to make clear. There > is no way, in first-order logic, OWL, or RDF to characterize the > notion of "the class used when an object was created". Really? Not quite what you are referring to, but OKBC for example had this notion of "direct-type", which was exactly this. and you can axiomatize it in FOL, I think, as a class C that it is a type of X such that no other subclass of C is also a type of X. Am I missing something? Natasha
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 21:36:38 UTC