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: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:47:42 -0400
Message-ID: <059901c2333a$3786dc20$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:

> > I vote for option 2.
> That's my preference for how sameClassAs works too.

I can't vote on this because I have no idea what the implications of these
two options are. That is to ask: what is the real difference between
"strong" vs. "weak" class as instances?

> A couple test cases: first, an obvious one:
> :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile.
> :car1 rdf:type :Car.
> ==>
> :car1 rdf:type :Automobile.
> now, one that shows the distinction:
> :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile.
> :Car :averagePrice "20000".
> =?=>
> :Automobile :averagePrice "20000".

Help! My brain doesn't know how to react to this!

Is this the same thing as saying that an instance of the class :Car has a
property :averagePrice which is constrained to have the value "20000"? If
not, why would a _class_ have an averagePrice -- are we going to sell them.
If so I'd like to have as many different classes as possible :-))

If it does mean that instances of this class do have this property, then
what would the meaning of sameClassAs be? Doesn't that mean that both
classes have the same property constraints?

> :Car owl:equivalentTo :Automobile.
> :car1 rdf:type :Car.
> :Car :averagePrice "20000".
> :Automobile :averageWeight "2000".
> =?=>
> :car1 rdf:type _:someClass.
> _:someClass :averagePrice "20000".
> _:someClass :averageWeight "2000".
> I'm still thinking about whether I really, really need this in
> owl or not.

This one doesn't look terribly solipsistic if we are still concerned with
such things :-) What are the pros and cons of each approach? If classes have
weights, then solipsism is looking better.... my laptop might suddenly get
very heavy :-))

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 13:55:02 UTC

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