- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:41:11 -0800
- To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@spin.ie>, <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <000c01c28f53$986b6db0$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
1. speciesOf vs. subClassOf, using the example Classes man, person, animal. a. man is person if and only if man has sameAs = person which means that the set of all men is identical to the set of all persons (in Aristotle's context) b. man iss animal if and only if man has speciesOf = animal which means that the set of all men is a proper subset of the set of all animals c. man iss* animal if and only if man has subClassOf = animal which means that either the set of all men is identical to the set of all animals or the set of all men is a proper subset of all animals The advantage of iss (speciesOf) over iss* (subClassOf) is that it provides a more precise foundation for logical inference on Class hierarchies. The inverse of "iss" is "isg" (is the genus of). The inverse of "isu" is "isp" (is the primitive concept of). 2. individualOf vs. type a. subject isu object iff subject has individualOf = object subject must be an individual b. subject has type = object subject can be any individual or any subClass of object 3. definitionOf expressed in triples I have not made any specific proposal for representing this "quad" in triples. Genus and differentia are not independent properties because definitions are context-dependent. In the alternative syntax of the KR language, a definition is expressed directly as subject isu genus with differentia subject iss genus with differentia ============ Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done knowledge haspart list of proposition ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Hanna To: public-webont-comments@w3.org Cc: RDF-Interest Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: RE: definitionOf > I contend that the OWL language [1] is missing three > essential properties: > > definitionOf > speciesOf > individualOf What is the difference between the proposed owl:individualOf and rdf:type? How do you propose to express owl:definitionOf in triples? What would differentiate that from being a combination of owl:subClassOf (or rdfs:subClassOf) and whatever triples one would need to express the differentia. What advantages does speciesOf have over a combination of owl:subClassOf (in one direction) and the owl:inverseOf owl:subClassOf (in the opposite direction) - is it intended to be a short hand for this?
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 17:41:14 UTC