- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:32:16 -0400
- To: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Guus, (and just as I thought I was ready to write this up ...) First, the A-box/T-box analogy might be a good one, in particular because it demonstrates an accepted way to write a model theory for something that looks like DL, thus the distinction _is an example of_ how the unasserted/asserted distinction does provide a solution to the problem of OWL having a non-paradoxical model theory. This does not necessitate that: a) WebOnt, at the end of the day, adopt this b) prevent the OWL MT from _itself_ asserting classes as instances What unasserted triples may itself do (assuming we use the A/T distinction) is take the assertion out of RDF (MT) and deal with this in OWL (MT). Is that about right? Jonathan > I'm getting a bit worried about the A-box/T-box discussions. > We have "classes as instances" on our requirements list. > We use it a lot in our (RDFS-based) applications, for example: > > rosch:natural-category rfs:type rdfs:Class > aat:seating-furniture rdf:type rdfsClass > > aat:chair rdf:type rosch:natural-category > aat:chair rdfs:SubClassOf aar:seating-furniture > > In words: a "chair" is a subclass of "seating furniture" (in the Art and > Architecture Thesaurus) and an instance of a Roschian "natural category" > (important meta-info for index/search purposes). > > Does this still mean something using dark triples? > > Guus > > > -- > A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15 > NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793 > Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl > WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html > >
Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 11:27:00 UTC