- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:32:35 +0100 (BST)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Jan seems to argue with DanC for option (e) - that somehow or other > datatyping subClassOf is extensional, whereas elsewhere it is intensional. Absolutely not. > I guess I find that really quite problematic. > > I seem to remember being isolated in defending the extensional semantics > for subClassOf; I can't understand what (some of) the rest of you want - > you got rdfs:subClassOf as intensional, but a least be consistent, and > forget your extensional intuitions. My opinion is that the "best" solution is that a "datatyping interpretation" would include additional axiomatic triples where subClassOf relationships should exist. I'd thought that was option (e). If it's not, make it (f) and I cast my vote for that: extensional throughout, with the possibility of a DT interpretation including SCO triples by fiat. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Hang on, wasn't he holding a wooden parrot? No! It was a porcelain owl.
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 20:36:39 UTC