W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: comment on Profile document: Missing rule in OWL-R?

From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:16:39 -0400
Message-ID: <48050D27.6040901@oracle.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


I think you are right. In OWL Full, the extension of owl:Class should be 
the same as the extension of rdfs:Class.
That table 5 is for OWL-R Full anyway. So I don't worry that it gets out 
of DL realm.



Ivan Herman wrote:
> Alan,
> The first rule in Table 5 of the profile document says
> (?c rdf:type owl:Class) =>
>     (?c rdfs:subClassOf ?c) and
>     (?c owl:equivalentClasses ?c)
> Isn't it necessary to have the same rule with rdfs:Class instead of 
> owl:Class? Of course, that would lead out of the DL realm in the case 
> of OWL-R-DL...:-(
> Ivan
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 20:17:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC