Re: What is the rationale for "*:x rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual" ?

Perhaps. I have to say this solution strikes me as being as ugly as
owl:deprecatedClass. It would be good to have another solution.
-Alan

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Boris Motik
<boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> I agree with Bijan: we should not overload vocabulary in the syntax.
>
> Regards,
>
>        Boris
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
>> Sent: 11 November 2008 14:15
>> To: Alan Ruttenberg
>> Cc: Boris Motik; W3C OWL Working Group
>> Subject: Re: What is the rationale for "*:x rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual" ?
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2008, at 13:59, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Boris Motik
>> > <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> This declaration has no special meaning: owl:NamedIndividual is
>> >> not assigned any special meaning in the vocabulary of OWL 2. The
>> >> vocabulary element is used only to denote that 8:x is declared.
>> >>
>> >> Note that writing *:x rdf:type olw:Thing would be ambiguous. You
>> >> get the same triple by serializing this axiom:
>> >>
>> >> ClassAssertion( owl:Thing *:x )
>> >
>> > This is a useless axiom. Therefore I suggest that we consider it the
>> > declaration.
>>
>> It's really not a good idea to try to overload tautologies with other
>> meaning. This leads to things like the min 0 debacle. Declarations
>> are declarations.
>>
>> (A simple example of how this can go pear shaped, this is an
>> entailment but we don't want declarations to be entailments.)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>
>
>