- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:42:37 -0500
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-dev@w3.org
>Just to be clear, the distinction I made (typing and declarations, >i.e., use/resource kind and intended resource kind) has been made >several times in this thread, usually by Boris. However, it seemed >to me that Michael confused them, or at least didn't seem to notice >the second and its uses. Perhaps this is an artifact of the "typo" >example. > >Also, it's important to reiterate that if we disallowed metamodeling >(e.g., punning) and required a fully separated vocabulary, then >there is much less need for representing the "intended" resource >kind distinct from its use since *any* "duel use" (e.g., class and >property) will show up as a syntax error. And if y'all did that "metamodelling" properly, instead of treating it as punning, there would also be no need, since nothing would be an error. But I won't beat that drum any more here. >We don't want to forbid metamodelling, and we could still only work >with use types (how you use it is what it is). But then we can't >express various sensible bits of advice about the intended nature of >terms. The goldilocks solution is to allow the expression of things >in between by means of some sort of annotation or description. > >The situation is a bit like typing in programming languages. If you >required declarations (and implicit typing everywhere) then you have >Java and the like (mainifestly typed languages). If you are >completely use-typed, you have languages like Smalltalk or Python. >If you goldilocks it, then you have languages like ML or Haskell or >perhaps common lisp, where you don't need to put type declarations >everywhere, but when you do they make a difference (esp. to the type >inference; i.e., you can get clashes). I guess what I don't see is why these have to be syntactically distinct from assertions, though. After all, we have here a language whose business is saying that things belong in classes. And what we want to say here is... well, you get the point. Why not just have a special class of classes called "isADeclarationClass", which when asserted of a class means that saying that something is in that class is a declaration. Then your declaration classes can be my ordinary classes, which gives us a lot of flexibility, and avoids a kind of global ossification into a single built-in hierarchy. Pat >It's not exact, but I hope it helps. > >Cheers, >Bijan. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 17:43:05 UTC