- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:53:17 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Brian McBride wrote: > > At 06:02 27/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote: > >Yes, I am assuming that two classes with the same members are the same class. > > > >If that is not true of rdfs:Class, > > As I wrote before, it is not. > > then either > >1. you are talking about "currently known members" of a class > > I don't believe that to be the case, as RDF makes no closed world assumptions. > > >or > >2. you are talking about two "different contexts", > > I don't believe that to be the case either, as we don't define a concept > called 'context'. > > >i.e., two different ways of viewing the same individuals, > > Maybe. rdfs classes are defined intentionally; that is, point (2) is roughly how you might put it. Defining classes just by their set of members, in contrast, would be characterised as an extensional definition. -- 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/ NB: with "Fundamental Human Rights" come "Fundamental Human Responsibilities".
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 04:53:47 UTC