Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class) from Jeremy Carroll on 2007-12-10 (public-owl-dev@w3.org from October to December 2007)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:42:03 +0000
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, hendler@cs.rpi.edu, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <475D260B.9030202@hpl.hp.com>

For me at least, Michael's clear analysis shows why it was probably a 
mistake to introduce the two terms in OWL 1.0; and why OWL 1.0 could 
probably have done better to have only used rdfs:Class, and any usage of 
rdfs:Class which did not work with the DL view of owl:Class would 
necessarily force the ontology into OWL full.

Hence the issue.

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 11:42:28 UTC