- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:53:38 +0000
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Michael Schneider wrote: > But if contradicting property assertions such as > > a r b > NOT ( a r b ) > > would really be out of scope in RDF in principle, then I would not know how > to answer the question why contradicting class assertions such as > > a rdf:type c > a rdf:type COMPLEMENT(c) > > or contradicting class axioms such as > > c1 owl:equivalentClass c2 > c1 owl:complementOf c2 > > should be regarded to be ok? > > At least, I don't remember having ever heard RDF people complaining about > the latter two. > Oh I only meant within RDF - complementOf is an OWL functionality. Some capability to contradict oneself is present in RDF due to lierals, but it is a blemish in a system that is generally additive and liberal. I think RDF applications that add a little-bit-of-OWL, will tend to avoid complementOf. If you want negation, which OWL does provide, I think you want quite a lot of OWL ... Jeremy
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 14:55:19 UTC