Re: java annotations & the semantic web

Oh, I just put together what you said, and what Danny made me say  
concerning intensionality.

I think that if the annotations are used to generate code that hooks  
into
an inferencing engine in the back you can easily get inferencing  
behavior,
and so I believe the extensional behavior you are refering to. (Not  
sure about
this).

This leads to some of the problems that I mentioned in a July e-mail:
      <https://bloged.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg? 
list=users&msgNo=644>

Which I am not sure how to solve yet. But I'll get there I hope... :-)

Note: There I was using an ad hoc annotation schema for java 1.4 (I  
should really
have used xdoclets I now realise). Clearly the current annoation  
scheme I am
proposing is a lot more powerful, and easy to read.

Henry Story

On 25 Aug 2005, at 11:24, Kirkham, Pete (UK) wrote:
>
> In terms of representing intensional classes, yes. But such  
> mechanisms do not easily allow extensional classes, which means you  
> can't use them for classification of data, inference, etc, and so  
> you can end up with a system based on the least common denominator  
> of the two.


I said:
> Danny Ayers said:
>> Also what about the difference in class semantics, e.g. how would you
>> express this:
>>
>> X rdfs:subClassOf Y
>> Y rdfs:subClassOf X
>> =>
>> X owl:equivalentClass Y
>> but *not*
>> X owl:sameAs Y
>>
>
> Now you are going into real advanced details :-) Reading the spec
>
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/ 
> #owl_equivalentClass>
>
> I understand that this is a distinction between what can be said in  
> OWL DL and OWL Full.
> owl:sameAs is saying what in philosophy I believe we used to call  
> intensional equivalence,
> ie  we are taking meaning into account. (or something along those  
> lines). owl:equivalentClass
> is extensional identity.

Received on Saturday, 27 August 2005 11:57:35 UTC