On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:45:07AM -0500, Pat Cassidy wrote:
> I would like to get a sense of this group on a terminological
> question. If you have any preference at all, please send me a note
> directly. (01)
That the more-or-less-kinda-sorta synonymous term in the W3C languages
is "Class" seems to me settle the issue. Indeed it seems to
me downright perverse to consider an alternative, give how very very
little, hangs on the choice. (As noted, in my view, nothing whatever
hangs on the choice, since we can specify the desired meaning of the
chosen term with judiciously selected axioms.) W3C is laying the
foundations for the Semantic Web, and so OWL/RDF(S) and their ilk, for
better or worse, are the way of the world. I doubt this group will be
taken seriously by the very large, very influential W3C community if it
chooses to depart from established, standard W3C terminology for this
fundamental concept. (02)
2-cents-edly yours, (03)
-chris (04)
ps: Note also that, as desired here, classes in RDF(S)/OWL are not
extensional by default, that is, it does not follow in those languages
that classes are identical if the have the same instances. (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (06)
|