Re: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough

OK, there seem to be two irreconcilable opinions here, one strongly in  
favour of conceiving a class as a "concept extension set" and one  
heavily against it. I guess my attempt of satisfying both sides by  
some paraphrasing has failed... :S
In triggering Richard to draft the below text suggestion I am even  
afraid to have made things worse... while I could have lived with  
"extension set", this isn't bearable even from my - well - diplomatic  
point of view.

Bijan, you want to give it a try and draft a response-response- 
response? Or (forgive my ignorance, I'm just the newby...) what  
exactly is the official procedure in this case?

Best,
  Sebastian



Am 13.05.2009 um 21:59 schrieb Richard H. McCullough:

> No, I am not satisfied with your proposed additional text.
>
> If  OWL2 "class" is the "extension set" of a "concept",
> your document should say that.
>
> If your document does not say that, you are missing
> this unique opportunity to eliminate the confusion
> associated with RDF "class".
>
> I propose adding the text below as the first paragraph
> of section 4 of the OWL2 primer.
>
> Natural languages use a "concept" to refer to a group
> of similar, individual entities.  A "concept" may be
> defined by its
>     "extension" -- the set of all individual entities
>                         which are members of the group
>     "genus" -- the more general group which includes
>                    all individual members of the group
>     "differentiae" -- the properties [a.k.a. "intension"]
>                           which are shared by all individual
>                           members of the group, and which
>                           distinguish them from other members
>                           of the "genus".
> In OWL 2:
>     a "class" is the "extension set" of a "concept";
>     the "class" is a "subClassOf" the "genus class";
>     property "restrictions" specify the "differentiae".
>
> Dick McCullough
> http://mkrmke.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sebastian Rudolph" <rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
> To: <rhm@pioneerca.com>
> Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 10:41 AM
> Subject: [LC response] To Richard H. McCullough
>
> > Dear Richard,
> >
> > Thank you for your comment
> >      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Apr/0066.html
> > >
> > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> >
> > In order to avoid any possible confusion we have added some text to
> > the OWL 2 Primer that clarifies the meaning of class and the
> > correspondence with concept (see <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=23518&oldid=23517
> > >).
> >
> > As a historical remark, the use of "class" in OWL 2 comes from its
> > prior use in related representation systems. RDF uses "class" (as
> > opposed to "concept" or another term). The original version of OWL
> > uses "class" to be compatible with RDF.
> >
> > Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org
> > > (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment
> > please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working
> > group's response to your comment.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sebastian Rudolph
> > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> > Dr. Sebastian Rudolph
> > Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
> > rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de    phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
> > www.sebastian-rudolph.de                 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

_________________________________________________
Dr. Sebastian Rudolph
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe
rudolph@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de    phone +49 (0)721 608 7362
www.sebastian-rudolph.de                 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998