- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 15 Oct 2002 10:38:45 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 10:25, pat hayes wrote: [...] > >So far, our (published WD) specs have been consistent > >with a view that classes and properties are disjoint. (In > >SWAD, we use that assumption for lint-style checking.) > >The 6Sep decision seems to conflict with the > >use of the datatype property idioim under > >the disjointness-of-properties-and-classes > >assumption. > > I was not aware that there was any such assumption. On the contrary, > in fact: the MT has been designed to allow the possibility of a class > and a property being the same. I guess I wasn't clear. Yes, the MT allows something to be both a class and a property. I don't mind that. But it doesn't *require* anything to be both a class and a property. So in SWAD, we generally consider it a mistake if you make something both a class and a property. And we'd rather not have that sort of heuristic flat out contradicted by the specs, e.g. if the spec said that dt:date was a class while we use it as a property. > If this is an assumption, maybe we > should reflect it formally in the language. Certainly that would make > the Webont work a little simpler. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 11:38:08 UTC