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

Re: ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:38:45 +0000
Message-ID: <47455C35.6040909@hpl.hp.com>
To: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Uli Sattler wrote:

> I think that what you suggest is to change the semantics of (OWL DL 
> and?) OWL 1.1 so that every interpretation domain contains, in addition 
> to "owl:thing"s, infinitely many other elements -- is this the case?


 > I don't think that this is really a email related to this issue: in OWL
 > DL and OWL 1.1, we can write
 > - an ontology such that all of their models are of finite cardinality
 > - an ontology such that all of their models are of infinite cardinality

The relevance of the quoted e-mail is that such a change places no 
burden on implementors.

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 10:39:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT