W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Asymmetry of Domain and Range in OWL

From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:36:35 -0700
Message-Id: <730F18FC-2472-11D9-8244-000A958B5C28@smi.stanford.edu>
Cc: rector@cs.man.ac.uk, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>

Chris,

> Finally, and importantly, OO subclass is NOT subsumption, which was 
> precisely my point.  It is almost subsumption, but there is this 
> subtle difference. This is what the note needs to make clear.  There 
> is no way, in first-order logic, OWL, or RDF to characterize the 
> notion of "the class used when an object was created".  

Really? Not quite what you are referring to, but OKBC for example had 
this notion of "direct-type", which was exactly  this. and you can 
axiomatize it in FOL, I think, as a class C that it is a type of X such 
that no other subclass of C is also a type of X.

Am I missing something?

Natasha
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 21:36:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:13 GMT