W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Action needed: subClassOf on datatypes

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:53:55 -0500
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1062554035.1062.264.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 16:32, Jan Grant wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> > Jan seems to argue with DanC for option (e) - that somehow or other
> > datatyping subClassOf is extensional, whereas elsewhere it is intensional.
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> > I guess I find that really quite problematic.
> >
> > I seem to remember being isolated in defending the extensional semantics
> > for subClassOf; I can't understand what (some of) the rest of you want -
> > you got rdfs:subClassOf as intensional, but a least be consistent, and
> > forget your extensional intuitions.
> 
> My opinion is that the "best" solution is that a "datatyping
> interpretation" would include additional axiomatic triples where
> subClassOf relationships should exist. I'd thought that was option (e).

Yes, that's what I meant by (e).

> If it's not, make it (f) and I cast my vote for that: extensional
> throughout, with the possibility of a DT interpretation including SCO
> triples by fiat.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 21:54:00 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:53 EDT