W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20071102.083946.137857459.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:00:08 +0000


> Since the OWL 1.0 design solves this problem, in the manner given by
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.19-Classes-as-instances
> [[
> Part of OWL Full.
> ]]

[The following line is not part of the resolution.]

> (and syntactically excluded from OWL DL)

In fact, the normative abstract syntax for OWL DL allows classes as

>From http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html:

	[...] a URI reference can be the identifier of a class or
	datatype as well as the identifier of a property as well as the
	identifier of an individual, although the ontology cannot then
	be translated into an OWL DL RDF graph.

> I personally see a variation in which this becomes
> "Part of OWL Full; syntactically permitted in OWL DL, but with weaker 
> semantics."
> as a backward step

Well, I see this variation as the variation that is embodied in OWL 1.0.

> Jeremy

Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 12:52:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC