- From: Piotr Kaminski <piotr@ideanest.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:28:14 -0700
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > The first step in this process is to establish exactly what the problem > is. The only "problem" I see below is that you don't think the current > proposal "makes sense". We need something a little stronger than that, > e.g. an internal contradiction. I'm still thinking through the ramifications and hope to come up with something stronger soon. I think the only way to reach an internal contradiction is through the domain and range constraints, but I'm not sure they're strong enough for the job. I'm convinced I could find something in DAML+OIL, but that's a much weaker argument. At this point some help from people who've been doing this kind of stuff much longer than me would be very welcome. > i.e. I conclude that the class of resources defined by Brian is a subClass > of the resources defined by Piotr, i.e. every resource defined by Brian is > also a resource defined by Piotr. That is not a valid inference. Precisely. You're getting an unwanted inference, so there's an error in the model you started out with. It's just a question of how you apply the rule -- this is exactly the situation described in RDF Model Theory section 4.3. And if you want to inherit from my resource class, then your metaclass had better inherit from mine. :-) -- P. -- Piotr Kaminski <piotr@ideanest.com> http://www.ideanest.com It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 12:41:58 UTC