- From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:56:36 -0700
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, <bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk>, <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Sorry to interrupt this fascinating conversation but I have a related question... if I can speak in XML for a moment... Are not assertions indicated by rdf:about, and declarations by rdf:ID? I have the understanding that the 'best practice' trend has been to make all statements to be rdf:about some subject, with an rdf:ID declaration of the subject treated as, if you will, a virtual axiom. Given this, I don't understand the need for a new predicate that distinguishes between assertive & declarative axioms. <Class rdf:about='yourClass'/> <!-- an assertion --> <Class rdf:ID='myClass'> <!-- a declaration--> <subClassOf rdf:resource='yourClass'/> </Class> I don't know how to express this distinction in the triples syntax so common to the postings... Thanks for your insights Pat, Michael, Bijan et al. ! >-----Original Message----- >From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org >[mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Pat Hayes >Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 9:04 AM >To: Michael Schneider >Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org; bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk; bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk >Subject: Re: declaredAs > > > >>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 17:56:26 UTC