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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:03:43 +0000
Message-Id: <33F677AC-5F68-4E03-97A7-6D065E8EEAAD@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On 22 Nov 2007, at 10:38, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 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?
>
> correct
>
>
> > 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.

Clearly not.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 13:02:09 GMT

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