W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: draft question: option C

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 15 Oct 2002 10:38:45 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1034696326.26925.179.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 10:25, pat hayes wrote:
[...]
> >So far, our (published WD) specs have been consistent
> >with a view that classes and properties are disjoint. (In
> >SWAD, we use that assumption for lint-style checking.)
> >The 6Sep decision seems to conflict with the
> >use of the datatype property idioim under
> >the disjointness-of-properties-and-classes
> >assumption.
> 
> I was not aware that there was any such assumption. On the contrary, 
> in fact: the MT has been designed to allow the possibility of a class 
> and a property being the same.

I guess I wasn't clear. Yes, the MT allows something to be
both a class and a property. I don't mind that.
But it doesn't *require* anything to be both a class and
a property.

So in SWAD, we generally consider it a mistake if you make
something both a class and a property. And we'd rather
not have that sort of heuristic flat out contradicted
by the specs, e.g. if the spec said that dt:date
was a class while we use it as a property.

> If this is an assumption, maybe we 
> should reflect it formally in the language. Certainly that would make 
> the Webont work a little simpler.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 11:38:08 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT