Re: Names or not?

Hi David,


> Should NC (etc) be defined as a set of *names* of OWL classes (etc)? 

Yes, indeed. Of course, the fact that these are names is kind of 
implicit since these sets are part of a vocabulary, but we should
probably say this explicitly.

Thanks,

Bernardo


> I
> was under the impression that the sets of classes, individuals, and so
> on are still disjoint for computational reasons, and the syntax makes
> clear which interpretation of a particular name one should use at any
> time.
>
> (The repeated use of the letter N also suggests that names are intended)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-semantics-20061219/
>
>