Fw: Why do you want to do that?

I forgot to Cc: semantic web at w3c

Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?


> Hi Frank
> Thanks for your response.
> 2. I'll look at that.
> 1. I'm asking why would people want to write X  subClassOf  X;
> I had proposed that properSubClassOf be used instead of subClassOf.
> The former is not a very appealing name.  If, instead, we change the 
> meaning
> of subClassOf to exclude the sameAs possibility, and keep the name 
> subClassOf,
>    X  subClassOf  X;
> is false.
>
> Dick McCullough
> Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
> mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
> knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
> knowledge haspart proposition list;
> http://mKRmKE.org/
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
> To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?
>
>
>> On Aug 8, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Over the last six years, I have suggested a number of
>>> "improvements" to the RDF language.  Not one of
>>> my suggestions was adopted.  Apparently,
>>> RDF is fine just the way is, thank you!
>>
>> Yep.  That doesn't imply opposition to improvements though;  some  people 
>> think the way to provide the "improvements" they want is to  define 
>> languages "on top of" RDF (like the OWL dialects) rather than  making 
>> those changes directly in RDF.  That way, your "improvement"  and my 
>> improvement can possibly co-exist more nicely :-)
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would now like to turn the tables, and ask
>>> why do you want to do that?
>>> I'll start with two features of RDF which seem to be popular.
>>>
>>> 1. X  subClassOf  X;
>>> A neat mathematical property, right?
>>> But if you do the inferences, what it means is
>>>   X  sameAs  X;
>>> We already knew that.
>>> Why do you want to do that?
>>
>> I need some help with this question.  Do you think being able to say X 
>> subClassOf Y is OK?  If so, are you asking why RDFS (not RDF, BTW) 
>> doesn't explicitly forbid the special case of X subClassOf X?  Why do 
>> you want to do that (i.e., test for this special case all the time)?   Or 
>> are you asking why people *write* X subClassOf X?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. X  type  Y;  X  subClassOf  Z;
>>> Another neat property: X is an individual and a class.
>>> Now I can ... What?  I don't know.
>>> Why do you want to do that?
>>
>> How about the example in Section 3.1.3 of the OWL Guide?
>>
>> --Frank
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 8 August 2008 16:50:51 UTC