- From: Natasha Noy <noy@smi.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:40:51 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Ivan, I am not sure I understand: Following your argument, saying :LionSubject a owl:Thing still technically doesn't preclude it from being an owl:Class, does it? Natasha PS. The document is already a WG Note, so making changes would be quite difficult logistically, as I understand it. On May 4, 2005, at 6:15 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > My (editorial) comment refers to Approach #2, but is also valid > elsewhere. > > The text (as well as the code) says: > > :LionSubject a :Lion. > > and, sort of, makes the implicit conclusion that this also means > > :LionSubject a owl:Thing. > > However, as far as I understand, this is not true per se *unless* > we know in advance that we are in OWL DL or OWL Light. If we do not > know that about an ontology, then there is nothing that > precludes :LionSubject to be also an owl:Class. Because the essence > of the text is to emphasize using individuals at that point to make > it clearly DL, I think it would be better to explicitly say: > > :LionSubject > a owl:Thing; > a :Lion . > > the same holds for a number of examples later in the text, and the > N3/XML codes. > > -- > > Ivan Herman > W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices > C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413 > 1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands > tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153; > URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 16:42:15 UTC