- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:05:26 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Firstly, my main point (with which I think Pat agrees) is that we >should define a simple "base" language, and then extend it as >necessary with -META -SECOND_ORDER or whatever. Yep, I think everyone agrees with this, more or less. >My particular worry was the potential confusion that is derived from >building on top of RDFS, which is designed so as to be able to >describe itself. For example, according to the specification, >rdfs:Class is a type of rdfs:Class as well as being a subClassOf >rdfs:Resource, which itself is a type of rdfs:Class. An rdf:Property >is also a type of rdfs:Class. Ah, I may have been misreading this. Maybe it is my turn to demonstrate lamentable ignorance in public, but could you briefly explain what the distinction is between being a type of and being a subclass of? I assumed that the fact that rdfs:Class is a type of rdfs:Class means that classes are a kind of class, which seemed harmless since it is a tautology. (Perhaps I should understand the first occurrence of 'rdfs:Class' here to be a mention rather than a use?) Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 14:02:24 UTC