- From: Je'ro^me Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:09:51 +0100
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jim Hendler <jhendler@darpa.mil>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Hello list,
remember that old thread were I was desesperately trying to
explain my viewpoint? [Sorry I am not fluent in quoting list-archives]
I thought that my english was so bad that no one was able to
understand what I meant. I meant just the conclusion of the "Equality
and subclass axioms" thread, namely that the problem does not comes
from equality by from openness.
It is nice to be able to add new constraints to terms:
triangle = (atleast 3 angles)
triangle = (atleast 3 sides)
and it has nothing to do with equality (funny, in the previous thread
I had to argue that it has nothing to do with primitive classes -
which is exactly the opposite situation).
So what does James Hendler really wants?
He wants the ability to prohibit further constraints on a
term by the ontologies which import it.
This is what I called closing a term definition.
I still believe that this might be very useful to ontology
designers (prescribers) and users/refiners (adopters).
This is only a syntactic way to solve the problem raised by
Jim. It has absolutely no impact on the semantics (which remains the
same).
--
Jérôme Euzenat __
/ /\
INRIA Rhône-Alpes, _/ _ _ _ _ _
/_) | ` / ) | \ \ /_)
655, avenue de l'Europe, (___/___(_/_/ / /_(_________________
Montbonnot St Martin, / http://www.inrialpes.fr/exmo
38334 Saint-Ismier cedex, / Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr
France____________________/ Jerome.Euzenat@free.fr
Received on Monday, 27 November 2000 18:39:22 UTC