RE: ISSUE: owl:Class name misleading; try owl:Set?

At 18:44 -0600 1/2/03, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 17:12, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>  3. We made a decision at that owl:class is a subclass of rdfs:class
>>  but not identical to rdfs:class (per closing of issue 5.22 and the
>>  "semantic consensus"). The RDF Schema document [1] reads:
>>  >RDF distinguishes between a class and the set of its instances.
>>  >Associated with each class is a set, called the class extension of
>>  >the class, which is the set of the instances of the class. Two
>>  >classes may have the same set of instances but be different classes.
>>  >For example, the tax office may define the class of people living at
>>  >the same address as the editor of this document. The Post Office may
>>  >define the class of people whose address has the same zip code as
>>  >the address of the author. It is possible for these classes to have
>>  >exactly the same instances, yet to have different properties. Only
>>  >one of the classes has the property that it was defined by the tax
>>  >office, and only the other has the property that it was defined by
>>  >the Post Office.
>>  so if we decided to go with a purely set based approach, the we would
>>  not be a subset,
>No? Please explain.
>As far as I can tell, it's quite coherent to say that
>the class of sets is a subclass of the class of classes.
>That's what cyc does

umm, cyc says the sets of sets which contain themselves (collections) 
is a superset of the set of sets, which isn't the same thing

>and KIF seems to do something similar... hmm...
>taking another look, maybe this isn't relevant.
>But still... please explain why it's not OK to say
>that owl:Set rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class?

hmm, maybe this is where the misunderstanding lies, and perhaps 
someone else can say which of us has it right.  Kif and Cyc are 
distinguishing between Set and collections  (a mathematical entity 
which is a set allowed to contain itself) where we're talking about 
something different - a class as an entity that can have properties 
associated with it other than just what the membership is.

As I read the semantics document, the class defined as "all people 
who are students and classmembers" is a different class than "all 
people who are students" even if we assert that
  :classmember owl:sameClassAs owl:nothing.
which would mean they necessarily have the same membership.  (because 
the restrictions and assertions associated with the class are 

Am I correct?

(This is fun, I'm being forced to read my way through the Semantics 
and work out issues - but perhaps those of you who understand this 
stuff better than I can say it better)


>>   but a different animal, and  we would have to reopen
>>  this discussion and issue (which I'm not inclined to do).
>>  My belief at the moment is that Semantics is consistent with the RDF
>>  S use of class, and thus I'm reluctant to introduce a different
>>  semantics at this late date.
>I don't think I'm introducing a different semantics. I think
>I'm just suggesting a more clear name for what we've got.
>>    I believe it would require a strong
>>  (STRONG) consensus of the WG if the decision is made to change this
>>  (esp. as the current also  seems to be consistent with DAML+OIL
>>  according to Peter in [2]).
>>  I may be misunderstanding the issue,
>One of us is.
>>   in which case I apologize, the
>>  above are not meant to force a particular decision but to express
>>  reluctance by the chair to introduce any major change on something
>>  this basic.
>>  -JH
>>  [1]
>>  [2]
>Dan Connolly, W3C

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 21:14:48 UTC