Re: LANG: closing issue 4.6 (was Re: ADMIN: Draf agenda for July 25 telecon)

I also use equivalentTo all the time, and never use samePropertyAs,
sameClassAs, or sameIndividualAs. If redundancy is the problem, let's
get rid of the three sameBlankAs properties instead of the one. The
three properties do two things:

1) say that two concepts are the same
2) say that the two concepts are both properties, classes, or

The first bit is what equivalentTo already does. The second bit is
virtually useless, because any reasonable ontology will have stated
whether a URI is a class or property elsewhere. Furthermore, these
properties can still cause the class/instance confusion because I could
say that foo is a class and then say foo sameInstanceAs bar.

If the problem is that people somehow see equivlalentTo as having
meaning that is fundamentally different from the sameBlankAs properties,
then I could live with renaming it to "sameAs."


p.s. a bit of DAML+OIL history: At first, only equivalentTo was in the
language. Some people argued for the need for a sameClassAs and
samePropertyAs, and eventually even added sameIndividualAs. I didn't
believe we needed them then, but didn't argue strongly because I could
simply ignore them as long as equivalentTo was in the language and they
were suproperties of it

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 09:24, Jim Hendler wrote:
> [...]
> > Proposed:
> >   I propose that we CLOSE issue 4.6 with the following resolution:
> >
> > We will remove the single construct "equivalentTo" from the language,
> > as it is possible to use other features (sameClassAs, samePropertyAs,
> > sameIndividualAs) to achieve its primary effect.
> Ugh; I use equivalentTo all the time, and I hardly ever
> use samePropertyAs, sameClassAs, or sameIndividualAs.
> Hmm... I could perhaps live without equivalentTo.
> I'll have to think about it.
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C
> see you in Montreal in August at Extreme Markup 2002?

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:06:16 UTC