- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 04:02:37 -0600
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
With the model theory and such, it's becoming more clear what rdfs:Class and rdf:type mean... in particular, it's not illegal to say _:A rdfs:subClassOf _:B. _:B rdfs:subClassOf _:A. but it doesn't mean that A=B; i.e. if you know _:A my:color "blue". you can't conclude _:B my:color "blue. But I would like to be able to say that X and Y are sets, which allows you to conclude, from the fact that their extensions/membership are the same that they are identical. So I propose rdfs:Set rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class. where this log:forAll :x, :y. { :x a rdfs:Set. :y a rdfs:Set. :x rdfs:subClassOf :y. :y rdfs:subClassOf :x. } log:implies { :x ont:equivalentTo :y }. hmm... need ont:equivalentTo to say what I mean. Maybe this is more for the WebOnt WG. But anyway... whever it belongs, it's a comment based on experience with RDF, so I'm sending it to www-rdf-comments now because I keep thinking of it and not having anything written down... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 05:02:28 UTC