W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: third version of semantics document

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:34:05 +0200
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MABBLGKMPIJFCKFGDBEPOEBNCBAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> could you make it clear why ...

> 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.

Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 08:29:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:33 UTC