- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:26:40 -0500
- To: Stephen Reed <reed@cyc.com>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Stephen Reed wrote: > > In the Cyc ontology ... speaking of Cyc's ontology and DAML, I was very interested to see Cyc's upper ontology in DAML: http://www.cyc.com/cyc-2-1/cyc.daml and the surrounding docs: http://www.cyc.com/cyc-2-1/toc.html But this gave me pause: | <rdf:Description rdf:about="&o;genls"> | <samePropertyAs rdf:resource="subClassOf"/> | </rdf:Description> first, because of typo/bug (of a very common variety, due to an RDF syntax misfeature*1). That should be rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf" or, since you've evidently decided entities aren't too ugly to use, rdf:resource="&rdfs;subClassOf" But more substantively... because cyc's genls is explicitly *not* extensional, and rdfs:subClassOf, per the DAML semantics, is explicitly extensional: [[[ In addition, two instances of #$Collection can be co-extensional (i.e., have all the same elements) without being identical, whereas if two arbitrary sets had the same elements, they would be considered equal. ]]] -- Cyc Fundamental Vocabulary http://www.cyc.com/cyc-2-1/vocab/fundamental-vocab.html#Collection Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:51:07 GMT vs. [[[ Warning: The RDF Schema specification demands that the subclass-relation between classes must be acyclic. We believe this to be too restrictive, since a cycle of subclass relationships provides a useful way to assert equality between classes. Consequently, DAML+OIL (March 2001) places no such restriction on the subClassOf relationship between classes; ]]] -- DAML+OIL (March 2001) reference description http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html#subClassOf-def Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:52:35 GMT note the <=>, as opposed to => [[[ Ax32. (<=> (PropertyValue subClassOf ?csub ?csuper) (and (Type ?csub rdfs:Class) (Type ?csuper rdfs:Class) (forall (?x) (=> (Type ?x ?csub) (Type ?x ?csuper))))) ]]] -- DAML+OIL Axioms http://www.daml.org/2001/03/axiomatic-semantics.html Sun, 04 Mar 2001 17:32:03 GMT So... in saying that cyc gels is the same property as rdfs:subClassOf, technically, you are licensing the inference from (and (cyc:genls X Y) (cyc:genls Y X)) to (daml:sameClassAs X Y) Was that on purpose? Were you aware of DAML's interpretation of rdfs:subClassOf? Perhaps you sort of avoided the issue by making sure there are no cycles in the genls tree in the ontology you released? This is particularly important/timely because the RDF Core WG is starting to discuss some nearby issues... Opening RDF Schema issues: rdfs-domain-and-range, rdfs-domain-unconstrained Dan Brickley (Tue, Jun 26 2001) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0482.html We haven't gotten to this particular issue yet, but we're likely to soon: Issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf: Cycles of subClassOf properties are prohibited. raised Wed, 14 Jun 2000 by Michel Klein http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf *1 re the syntax misfeature, as evidence that this is a known bug/misfeature, and for backlink purposes... http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 12:26:51 UTC