Re: A Model Theoretic Semantics for DAML-ONT (now, an Axiomatic Semantics)

>Guha wrote:
> >
> > Ora,
> >
> >  I think they *are* supposed to be disjoint.
>That's good, since you can deduce that they're disjoint
>from this semantics
>DAML-ONT Axioms
>Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:16:36 GMT
>er... at least I think you can... where did the
>axioms about what a class is (set of singletons)
>and what a property is (a set of pairs) go?
>They were in an earlier draft, no?
>Anyway, the proof goes:
>	Every class is a set of singletons
>	Every property is a set of pairs
>	nothing is both a singleton and a pair
>	=> the intersection of classes and properties is empty.

That would be valid, certainly, but why is a class a set of 
singletons? (Shouldn't a class be allowed to be a set of anything? 
What is the utility of restricting it to singletons? For example, 
couldnt I have a class of, say, people, rather than singletons of 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 17:46:38 UTC