Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> So another example of forcing the domain to be finite without mentioning
> owl:Thing would be
> 
> 	C = { a }
> 	C- = { b }
> 

I think the observation that this is satisfiable in OWL DL and not in 
OWL Full is more about the finiteness issue than the owl:Class v 
rdfs:Class issue.

It is true that there is an OWL DL definition in the RDFS compatible 
semantics in OWL 1.0, and the owl:Class v rdfs:Class difference is 
visible with that semantics, but I don't think anyone works with that.

Jeremy