Re: Re[2]: P.S. re: two senses of Class (RDF vocabulary definiitions)

I misunderstood what you were saying.  
In the context of your previous statements, I thought that "a member of a class" meant "John Doe".
I agree that "a member of a class can be an individual or a class".

I apologize for misquoting you.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Leonid Ototsky 
  To: Richard H. McCullough 
  Cc: David Menendez ; RDF-Interest 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:02 AM
  Subject: Re[2]: P.S. re: two senses of Class (RDF vocabulary definiitions)


  Hello Richard,

  Wednesday, November 20, 2002, 12:34:09 PM, you wrote:


  RHM> Re: P.S. re: two senses of Class (RDF vocabulary definDavid
  RHM>  Menendez and Leonid Ototsky both inform me that an Individual can be a Class.
  RHM> That is absolutely false.

  Sorry, but I said something another !!! Namely that A MEMBER of a CLASS
  can be an Individual Type or a CLASS type ( from the EPISTLE Core
  Model point of view) . But NOT that "an Individual can be a Class" (?!)

  Regards,
  Leonid

  RHM> Here are the definitions from the theory of epistemology,
  RHM> paraphrased to match the context of our current discussion.

  RHM>     An individual is a single concrete existent.

  RHM>     A class is an abstract group of two or more similar individuals.
  RHM> ============
  RHM> Dick McCullough
  RHM> knowledge := man do identify od existent done
  RHM> knowledge haspart list of proposition

  RHM>   ----- Original Message -----
  RHM>   From: David Menendez
  RHM>   To: RDF-Interest
  RHM>   Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:52 PM
  RHM>   Subject: Re: P.S. re: two senses of Class (RDF vocabulary definiitions)


  RHM>   At 10:16 PM -0800 2002-11-19, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
  RHM>     I had forgotten about the other problem with type, e.g.

  RHM>         John Doe  type  person

  RHM>     where

  RHM>         John Doe  individualOf  person

  RHM>     not

  RHM>         John Doe  subClassOf  person


  RHM>   I'm not sure what problem you're seeing.


  RHM>   In RDF(S), the statements
  RHM>     eg:john_doe rdf:type eg:Person.
  RHM>   and
  RHM>     eg:john_doe rdf:subClassOf eg:Person.
  RHM>   are entirely independent and mean different things.


  RHM>   My understanding of RDF-MT is that the first statement means "I(eg:john_doe) is a member of ICEXT(I(eg:Person))" while the second means "ICEXT(I(eg:john_doe)) is a subset of
  RHM> ICEXT(I(eg:Person))". These are distinct assertions, and either can be true without the other being true.


  RHM>   (I(x) is the interpretation of x, and ICEXT(y) is the set of all things belonging to the class y.)


  RHM>   If I say
  RHM>     eg:Dog rdfs:subClassOf eg:Mammal.
  RHM>   I am not implying
  RHM>     eg:Dog rdf:type eg:Mammal.
  RHM>   because that would mean that the class "Dog" is a mammal, which it is not. Individual dogs are mammals, but the set of all dogs is a set.
  RHM> --
  RHM> Dave Menendez - zednenem@psualum.com - http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/




  Best regards,
   Leonid
  mailto:leo@mmk.ru and copy to leo@mgn.ru
  =====================================================
  Leonid Ototsky,
  http://ototsky.mgn.ru
  Chief Specialist of the Computer Center,
  Magnitogorsk Iron&Steel Works (MMK)- www.mmk.ru
  Russia
  =====================================================