- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 17 Apr 2002 18:39:25 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 18:33, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > >Example: > > > >The RDF document: > > > ><rdf:Description rdf:about="#John"> > > <rdf:type rdf:resource="#Student"> > > <rdf:type rdf:resource="#Employee"> > ></rdf:Description> > > > >understood with rdf:type denoting set membership, would, under almost all > >set theories, entail #John being a member of the intersection of #Student > >and #Employee. > >In daml+oil this is said: > > > ><rdf:Description rdf:about="#John"> > > <rdf:type> > > <daml:class> > > <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Employee"/> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Student"/> > > <daml:intersectionOf> > > </daml:class> > > </rdf:type> > ></rdf:Description> > > > >If we leave the daml class expression: > > > > > ><rdf:RDF> > > <daml:class> > > <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Employee"/> > > <daml:class rdf:ID="Student"/> > > <daml:intersectionOf> > > </daml:class> > ></rdf:RDF> > > > >as unasserted What do you mean by that? I expected some syntactic way to tell which triples are asserted and which aren't. I don't see any such clues. Help? > > then OWL can assign a meaning to this expression wholly > >independently of RDF. What meaning? How is the paradox avoided? Please finish telling the story of how this solves the problem. > > > > > >Have I got it? > > That seems a fair summary to me, yes. It's still not to the point where I can write test cases to crystalize the issue. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 19:40:31 UTC