- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:04:19 -0500
- To: "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk, bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
>Hi Pat! Hi Michael > >In another answer to Bijan Parsia, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> 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. > >Hm, not sure if I really understand this idea. If I correctly >understand you than 'isADeclarationClass' would be a specialization >of owl:Class, i.e. > > owl:isADeclarationClass ISA owl:Class > >And an axiom like > > my:C a owl:IsADeclarationClass > >would then be a substitute for otherwise declaring > > my:C owl:declaredAs owl:Class > >Is this right? Right. > >But why then not just directly saying > > my:C a owl:Class > Because this is merely an assertion, whereas the (same) assertion involving a declarationClass would have the force of a declaration. In particular, any inconsistency involving the declarationClass class would be posted as a syntax error rather than a simple inconsistency. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thursday, 9 August 2007 16:04:37 UTC