- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:18:02 -0400
- To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> Subject: Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:01:09 -0400 > At 8:28 AM -0400 8/15/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl> > >Subject: Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon > >Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:58:37 +0200 > > > >> > >> Further to my summary of the contributions to public comments list, > >> two new messages arrived today, both of which are also relevant to the > >> semantics discussion also on the agenda for today: > >> > >> Message [1] points out a bug in the DAML+OIL spec that we are about to be > >> bitten by as well if we don't take care. (Essentially the current DAML+OIL > >> spec of sameClassAs forces its arguments to be of type daml:Class, > > > even if without that statement they would only be of type rdfs:Class). > > > > To the best of my recollection, the discussion of the precise > differences between daml:class and rdfs:class, which seems to carry > over into our current decision-making and issues, was discussed in > the DAML joint committee, and not really in this WG -- I've looked > through the archives and seen many references to owl:class being > different than rdfs:class, but I cannot find a message that precisely > describes the differences -- can someone either point the WG to such > a message (or import one from joint-committee WG archives) or write a > summary. From our own discussions, it is not clear to me what is > being offered as a reason not to simply drop owl:class and use > rdfs:class (or just make them equivalent if we resolve the open issue > to have everything be owl:) > -JH One thread on this issue culminated with the message http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/0872.html The basic distinction is that DAML classes (i.e., members of daml:Class) can only have resources as their instances (i.e., not literals). peter
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 09:18:14 UTC