- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:22:15 -0500
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> However, my principle is that I don't mind >having a BigASS if that's what it takes to avoid having a DumbASS. Right, it is a mistake to be too much of a TightASS about everything. > > > > If you are suggesting that the step all the way from ASS as in the > > draft partition proposal to schema is too big and to break that up > > into two layers - built in typing and then user defined typing, I > > wouldn't disagree with you. > > > > I suggest there is value in identifying a base layer which is > > minimal on which everything else could be built. Right now I don't > > expect that MUST include concepts of type, Class etc, but I could > > be proved wrong. > >I agree. It's just that I think the concepts of type (or Class), and >specific classes like Statements, are in the base layer already. It's >just that we seem to want to avoid calling them "classes" in M&S for >some reason (we call them "sets" instead), only to turn around first >thing in Schema and say "you know those sets foo and bar and ... we >talked about in M&S? Well those are the classes foo and bar and ... >here." I don't see the point in doing that. I thought the point was that in the base, the sets (classes, whatever) are needed to give the semantics, but are not directly referred to by anything in the language (rather like the universe of discourse in FOL) , whereas in Schema there are expressions which indicate (denote, whatever) the classes directly. If that impression is correct (;-/) then it would make sense and in fact would be a very natural kind of 'layering'. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 10:43:37 UTC