- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:34:05 +0200
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jim: > could you make it clear why ... Peter: > The first paragraph of section 1 of the document states that individuals > are not classes or properties. QED While Peter's answer may be logically correct I think it demonstrates a stylistic tension between a document driven versus an issue driven process. I get the impression that Peter sees a process in which a document (e.g. his semantics doc) specifies a coherent view, and then the issues are resolved by deduction from that document. An alternative process (at the other extreme) is that we have a range of issues, we make informed (but piecemeal) choices about those issues and then try and create a coherent document that encapsulates those choices (an abductive process). Obviously coherency may be hard or impossible, in which case the conflicting choices need to be revisited. A third process, which is what I thought we were following, is that we have some provisional documents that give a more or less coherent view; and we use those to help inform piecemeal choices about issues. Where we choose to not follow the consequences of those provisional documents, then changes to the documents will be necessary. Thus, I would find an answer to the rdf:Class versus owl:Class question as one that gave a clearer indication of what problems we solve by the additional complexity of having two distinct Class concepts. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 08:29:10 UTC