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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ISSUE: owl:Class name misleading; try owl:Set?
Date: 03 Jan 2003 00:38:37 -0600

> On Wed, 2003-01-01 at 21:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure what you are proposing here.  It seems to me that you are
> > > > either saying that OWL classes already act like sets, which is incorrect,
> > > 
> > > I don't understand how it's incorrect. Please explain.
> > 
> > See above.
> 
> OK, I'm convinced; after reading the semantics drafts
> more closely, they don't say what I thought they said.
> They don't guarantee that co-extensional owl classes are identical in
> full owl.
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't see any reason it couldn't be
> straightforwardly added.
> 
> > > > and thus that various names should be changed, or that OWL classes should
> > > > act like sets, which I would oppose.
> > > 
> > > Why?
> > 
> > Because it would be a last-minute change to OWL.  I don't think that the
> > working group should be making changes to OWL from now on, except as
> > required to fix problems.
> 
> I consider the sort of confusion expressed by McBride in
> the message I cited to start this thread
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Dec/0004.html
> indicative of a problem; 

This message states quite clearly that Brian's problem caused by the
features document, which states

	sameClassAs: Two classes may be stated to be the same (i.e., they
	may be stated to be different names for the same set of individuals)

This wording is wrong, and needs to be changed.

[...]

peter

Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 06:54:18 UTC