Re: comments on issue 5.19 (classes as instances) and 4.6 (equivalentTo)

well, all I wanted to say extra is that this
mixed stance is tested with running code...

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/




Jos De_Roo
2002-07-30 12:22 AM


        To:     "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
        cc:     www-webont-wg@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: comments on issue 5.19 (classes as instances) and 4.6  (equivalentTo)

> [I found this note surprisingly difficult to write.  I may end up
> significantly revising it due to comments from the group.]

[...]

> R2/ two names have the same class extension
> R3/ two names have the same property extension

[...]

I'm having a mixed stance I think...
(leaving out the (x,y)'s and having
-> for implies and /-> for notImplies)

[c1] sameClassAs        ->   R2
[c2] sameClassAs       /->  equivalentTo
[c3] sameClassAs       /->  sameIndividualAs

[p1] samePropertyAs     ->   R3
[p2] samePropertyAs    /->   equivalentTo
[p3] samePropertyAs    /->   sameIndividualAs

[i1] sameIndividualAs   ->   sameClassAs
[i2] sameIndividualAs   ->   samePropertyAs
[i3] sameIndividualAs   ->   equivalentTo

[e1] equivalentTo       ->   sameClassAs
[e2] equivalentTo       ->   samePropertyAs
[e3] equivalentTo       ->   sameIndividualAs


and because of [i3] and [e3], I propose
to drop sameIndividualAs and just keep

[c1] sameClassAs        ->   R2
[c2] sameClassAs       /->   equivalentTo

[p1] samePropertyAs     ->   R3
[p2] samePropertyAs    /->  equivalentTo

[e1] equivalentTo       ->   sameClassAs
[e2] equivalentTo       ->   samePropertyAs


and some consequences

[e1][c1] equivalentTo   ->   R2
[e2][p2] equivalentTo   ->   R3


[have to continue when it's a bit cooler here...]


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 04:19:38 UTC