Re: semantics of daml:equivalentTo [was: Comments on Annotat

At 12:56 -0500 10/11/00, Dan Connolly wrote:
>jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason for not having SymmetricProperty and
> > ReflexiveProperty classes?
>
>No, no particular reason. Except... hmm... it was
>discussed briefly with a few folks, and I took
>away from that discussion that no, these could
>wait for a future version or a layer on top or something.
>
>Would anybody else care to second this request for
>enhancement? Any particular practical motivation?
>Anybody have tools that could exploit them,
>or tools that suffer for the lack of them, or
>ontologies that you're building that are particularly
>awkward without them?
>
>Better yet: how about writing a schema/ontology for these
>and putting it in the Web, showing how it works, and
>seeing if anybody else finds it useful?
>
> > and EquivalentProperty class?
> > (which is redundant, but good for deductions)
>
>Seems just as reasonable.
>
> > Can we then say type(equivalentTo, EquivalentProperty)?
>
>Yes, we could.


we wanted to release something very quickly that pretty much everyone 
could agree to as a definitional language - so symmetric, reflexive, 
transitive, etc. were left out because we didn't have agreement on 
what the complete set was we wanted and what to do -- is on the top 
of the list for next go around -- so it's a fruitful area for 
discussion on this list.

Prof. James Hendler		Program Manager
DARPA/ISO			703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203		jhendler@darpa.mil

Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2000 16:46:42 UTC