RE: Where DAML+OIL deviates from the RDF-Schema spec.

> > From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> > I agree with [2] and [3], and could live with [1]. My main
> > concern w.r.t.
> > using loops in the class and property hierarchies to indicate
> > synonyms is
> > with end-user comprehensibility and with user interface
> > generation.
>
>I suspect you end up having to implement loop detection in many systems
>anyway.  Speaking from experience, provided you know you have to do it it's
>not a huge overhead for UI generation.  As for end-user comprehensibility, I
>also suspect [and hope] that most users will have editor assistance for any
>hierarchy that is complex enough to include loops.

I think the issue is not the cost of finding them, but the inferences 
that it is proper to draw from them. Suppose A says that X is a 
remote sub-sub-.....sub-class of Y, and B says that Y is a remote 
sub-....class of X. Is this loop evidence of a confusion between A 
and B, or should a reasoning engine just happily conclude that A and 
B together imply thatX, Y and everything in between, are all the same 
thing? Right now, DAML does the latter.

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 Thursday, 1 March 2001 15:39:02 UTC