W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:53:17 +0000 (GMT)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211280951430.13842-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Brian McBride wrote:

>
> At 06:02 27/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> >Yes, I am assuming that two classes with the same members are the same class.
> >
> >If that is not true of rdfs:Class,
>
> As I wrote before, it is not.
>
> then either
> >1. you are talking about "currently known members" of a class
>
> I don't believe that to be the case, as RDF makes no closed world assumptions.
>
> >or
> >2. you are talking about two "different contexts",
>
> I don't believe that to be the case either, as we don't define a concept
> called 'context'.
>
> >i.e., two different ways of viewing the same individuals,
>
> Maybe.

rdfs classes are defined intentionally; that is, point (2) is roughly
how you might put it. Defining classes just by their set of members, in
contrast, would be characterised as an extensional definition.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
NB: with "Fundamental Human Rights" come "Fundamental Human Responsibilities".
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 04:53:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT