W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > November 2000

Re: A Model Theoretic Semantics for DAML-ONT (now, an Axiomatic Semantics)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:53:58 -0500 (EST)
To: Guha <guha@guha.com>
cc: Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0011291541420.22103-100000@tux.w3.org>

Yep, though I don't believe we ever called out explicitly that these were
disjoint (except in the diagrams). Partly because we backed off from
inventing relations like disjointWithClass or similar, which would have
made it easier to be explicit about such things.

We could probably concoct some example that sounded plausible, but IMHO
it wouldn't be worth the confusion-overhead: allowing a property to be
a class with members could encourage some really confusing schema
writing...

Dan

(also very happy to see some of our unarticulated assumptions
being nailed down :)

On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Guha wrote:

> Ora,
>
>  I think they *are* supposed to be disjoint. Can you give
> me an example of an RDF  property that is also a class?
>
> Guha
>
> Ora Lassila wrote:
>
> > First, let me say that (as the author of the RDF M+S spec) I find
> > Richard and Deborah's document *extremely* helpful in communicating the
> > meaning of the original RDF specification(s). The document even
> > formalizes some of our non-verbalized intentions...
> >
> > I hope this helps others in understanding the RDF model.
> >
> > Small comment: Ax8 says that Property and Class are disjoint. Maybe I am
> > missing something, but I fail to see the justification for this (we
> > didn't intend this when working on the RDF Schema spec).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >         - Ora
> >
> > --
> > Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org> +1 (781) 993-4603
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 15:54:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:33 UTC