W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:18:02 -0400
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020815091802A.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:01:09 -0400

> At 8:28 AM -0400 8/15/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
> >Subject: Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon
> >Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:58:37 +0200
> >
> >>
> >>  Further to my summary of the contributions to public comments list,
> >>  two new messages arrived today, both of which are also relevant to the
> >>  semantics discussion also on the agenda for today:
> >>
> >>  Message [1] points out a bug in the DAML+OIL spec that we are about to be
> >>  bitten by as well if we don't take care. (Essentially the current DAML+OIL
> >>  spec of sameClassAs forces its arguments to be of type daml:Class,
> >  > even if without that statement they would only be of type rdfs:Class).
> >
> To the best of my recollection, the discussion of the precise 
> differences between daml:class and rdfs:class, which seems to carry 
> over into our current decision-making and issues, was discussed in 
> the DAML joint committee, and not really in this WG -- I've looked 
> through the archives and seen many references to owl:class being 
> different than rdfs:class, but I cannot find a message that precisely 
> describes the differences -- can someone either point the WG to such 
> a message (or import one from joint-committee WG archives) or write a 
> summary.  From our own discussions, it is not clear to me what is 
> being offered as a reason not to simply drop owl:class and use 
> rdfs:class (or just make them equivalent if we resolve the open issue 
> to have everything be owl:)
>   -JH

One thread on this issue culminated with the message


The basic distinction is that DAML classes (i.e., members of daml:Class)
can only have resources as their instances (i.e., not literals).

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 09:18:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:46 UTC