- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:37:44 -0800
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, schneid@fzi.de, alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-dev@w3.org
>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.
I agree. This would be unsatisfiable in DL also if DL admitted that
literal values were real individuals. The individual/datatype
distinction in DL was put there because it makes the reasoning more
tractable, but it also has silly semantic consequences, like the
above. It is ridiculous for a Web ontology language to allow one
ontology to assert that nothing else on the Web exists.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2007 19:38:05 UTC