- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:06:40 +0100
- To: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@tamu.edu>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Chris Menzel wrote: > Fine. The issue, as you are aware, is just whether properties like > symmetry should only indicate something contingent about a relation's > extension or something stronger about its "nature". Either view can be > useful. > > Chris Menzel > > The WG used the words intensional or extensional in their discussions. i.e. does a metaproperty hold only by act of fiat on the part of some ontology designer (their intension) or is it a statement reflecting the extension (in all interpretations). On a number of issues we went for extension (I think I initially was not too keen but I don't really remember) and once we got a few under our belt it made sense to be consistent on this. I would guess that everything which could be read extensionally now is. I see nothing intrinsically wrong in saying that Love is symmetric, if we live in such a fortunate world. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 11:17:34 UTC