- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 05:46:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schneid@fzi.de
- Cc: bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk, rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Beyond the scope of the Primer. peter From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de> Subject: RE: LC reply drafted Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:34:45 +0200 > And then, there is still also the RDF-Based Semantics, which interprets > classes as /individuals/ that have a set of individuals /assigned/ to them > as their class /extension/. > > Michael > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] >>On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia >>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:54 PM >>To: Sebastian Rudolph; W3C OWL Working Group >>Subject: Re: LC reply drafted >> >>On 12 May 2009, at 20:41, Sebastian Rudolph wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> if I interpreted the intention of the below LC comment correctly, >>> Richard would like to see an explicit statement that classes just >>> represent sets of individuals >> >>But that would be to say something false. OWL Classes most obviously >>do not "just" represent sets of individuals (as they can be mapped to >>distinct sets in different interpretations). If anything, OWL Classes >>are first order logic formulae with one free variable (and thus, when >>atomic, correspond to monadic predicates). >> >>> and that the notion of a "concept" is something related but different. >>> I tried to address this by adding two sentences to the Primer >>> document, see the diff at >>> >>> >>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23464&oldid= >>23440 >> >>""In modeling, classes are often used to denote the extension sets of >>concepts of human thinking, like ''person'' or ''woman''.""" >> >>But this is precisely wrong: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition#Intension_and_extension >> >>(reductio ad wikipedia :)). So please don't use the word "extension". >> >>The commentator has a strange idea of what a concept is (and of class, >>and of set). I don't really want to import them into an already >>tangled terminological situation. >> >>> Find the proposed draft response at: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC2_Responses/RHM1 >> >> >>In general, readers of the primer aren't going to know what "extension >>set" (er... generally known as the *extension*) is, so this wouldn't >>be clarificatory even if it were right. >> >>Cheers, >>Bijan. >
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 09:45:36 UTC