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

Re: LANG: closing issue 4.6 (was Re: ADMIN: Draf agenda for July 25 telecon)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:52:53 -0400
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020724125253K.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: LANG: closing issue 4.6 (was Re: ADMIN: Draf agenda for July 25 	 telecon)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:26:09 -0400

> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 09:24, Jim Hendler wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Proposed:
> > >   I propose that we CLOSE issue 4.6 with the following resolution:
> > > 
> > > We will remove the single construct "equivalentTo" from the language, 
> > > as it is possible to use other features (sameClassAs, samePropertyAs, 
> > > sameIndividualAs) to achieve its primary effect.
> > 
> > Ugh; I use equivalentTo all the time, and I hardly ever
> > use samePropertyAs, sameClassAs, or sameIndividualAs.
> > 
> > Hmm... I could perhaps live without equivalentTo.
> > I'll have to think about it.
> 
> Well if classes are really individuals then, isn't: 
> 
> sameClassAs subPropertyOf sameIndividialAs, 

Not necessarily.  sameClassAs could enforce co-extensionality without
making the two classes denote the same object.

> and hence 
> 
> equivalentTo equivalentTo sameIndividualAs, 
> 
> or have we given up on that -- is that the point ? :-)
> 
> Jonathan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:53:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT