- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:47:42 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > > I vote for option 2. > > That's my preference for how sameClassAs works too. I can't vote on this because I have no idea what the implications of these two options are. That is to ask: what is the real difference between "strong" vs. "weak" class as instances? > > A couple test cases: first, an obvious one: > > > :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile. > :car1 rdf:type :Car. > ==> > :car1 rdf:type :Automobile. > > now, one that shows the distinction: > > :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile. > :Car :averagePrice "20000". > =?=> > :Automobile :averagePrice "20000". Help! My brain doesn't know how to react to this! Is this the same thing as saying that an instance of the class :Car has a property :averagePrice which is constrained to have the value "20000"? If not, why would a _class_ have an averagePrice -- are we going to sell them. If so I'd like to have as many different classes as possible :-)) If it does mean that instances of this class do have this property, then what would the meaning of sameClassAs be? Doesn't that mean that both classes have the same property constraints? ... > > :Car owl:equivalentTo :Automobile. > :car1 rdf:type :Car. > :Car :averagePrice "20000". > :Automobile :averageWeight "2000". > =?=> > :car1 rdf:type _:someClass. > _:someClass :averagePrice "20000". > _:someClass :averageWeight "2000". > > I'm still thinking about whether I really, really need this in > owl or not. > This one doesn't look terribly solipsistic if we are still concerned with such things :-) What are the pros and cons of each approach? If classes have weights, then solipsism is looking better.... my laptop might suddenly get very heavy :-)) Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 13:55:02 UTC