- From: Bill Andersen <andersen@ontologyworks.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:40:26 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > There is > > a reasonably well-defined meaning for equality (=identity = > > equivalence) which is pretty much what Jeff says above: it means that > > the terms refer to the same thing. So to assert > > equivalentTo(X, Y) > > is to claim that X and Y have the same denotation. Now, this in turn > > is just as clear or as murky as the notion of denotation is for X and > > Y. > > > > Pat Hayes > > It is my belief that Jeff's belief is that equivalentTO should be much more > like the other option I outlined, namely that X is given the definition > that Y has and that X can have no other definition. I have to agree with Pat here. To reiterate the points in my message of the other day, what you're dealing with is a notion of identity/equality across properties/relations/whatever. To say (as Peter says) that "namely that X is given the definition that Y has and that X can have no other definition" is to say that X and Y have precisely the same properties (this is Leibniz's Law). Why is there a need to express this idea in other than standard existing mathematical/philosophical terms??? ...bill -- Bill Andersen Chief Technology Officer - Ontology Works 1130 Annapolis Road, Suite 203, Odenton, MD 21113 andersen@ontologyworks.com / 410-674-7600
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 14:39:27 UTC