W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Why do you want to do that?

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:58:36 -0400
To: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
Message-Id: <0AFCD7CB-C2A1-41CE-A7A6-9B6385E91F06@acm.org>
Cc: "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org>


On Aug 13, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:

>
> See below.
> Dick McCullough

See below.

--Frank

>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>
> To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>; "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org 
> >
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?
>
>
>> Dick--
>>
>> But you still haven't explained what the ambiguity is you were   
>> referring to.  This new example doesn't help me.  If you mean by   
>> "airplane car" a class of things that are both airplanes and cars,  
>> I  don't see any ambiguity with it:  people have (and do) make  
>> things  that are both airplanes and cars.
> **** I guess I'll have to think of a better example.
>>
>> A basic issue you might address is how someone can make statements   
>> about a class if the class can't also be treated as an individual.
> ***** In mKR, you can make statements about classes.
> ***** In RDF, I'm not sure what the restrictions are.

There aren't any classes in RDF (per se);  in RDFS there are classes,  
and they can be treated as individuals (which is where we came in,  
more or less).  That is, in RDFS a class is a resource (like  
everything else that can be referred to in RDFS), and resources can be  
the subjects of triples.

--Frank


>
>>
>> --Frank
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Frank
>>>
>>> I hear you, but I don't think "green car" captures the nature of  
>>> the ambiguity.
>>> It's more like an "airplane car".
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>; "Adam Pease" <adampease@earthlink.net
>>> >; "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "KR-language" ><KR-language@YahooGroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:36 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Why do you want to do that?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dick--
>>>>
>>>> What's the ambiguity that's introduced?  It seems to me that  
>>>> when  I treat something as both an individual and a class, in a  
>>>> logical language that allows it, it's perfectly unambiguous that  
>>>> you're  doing that.  If I have a green car, something that's both  
>>>> a car  and a green thing, there's no "ambiguity" as to whether  
>>>> it's a car  or a green thing;  it's just both. In these examples  
>>>> from the OWL  Guide  (assuming you choose to use OWL Full as  
>>>> indicated), there  isn't any  ambiguity either;  something is  
>>>> simply both an  individual and a class.
>>>>
>>>> --Frank
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Frank
>>>>> OK, I have been convinced there's a reason why you would want  
>>>>> to  do that.
>>>>> The downside is that you introduce another ambiguity, which  
>>>>> must  be resolved
>>>>> by context.
>>>>> Humans are pretty good at doing that.
>>>>> One aim of mKR is to make them even better at doing that.

snip
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 20:59:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:24 GMT