O.k. It seems that I could not convince anyone:-(. The reasons of my comments were purely didactic when reading the text and *not* technical (all arguments here and in the other mails are obviously true and technically clear). But it seems that I am alone with my feelings about this... As I said in my direct reply to Natasha, this is not a show stopper, so you can close the issue. Ivan Jeremy Carroll wrote: > In OWL Full > > :LionSubject a :Lion. > > OWL Full entails > > :LionSubject a owl:Thing. > > === > > In OWL DL or OWL Lite any syntactically valid ontology containing the > triple > > :LionSubject a :Lion. > > for instance this one: > :LionSubject a :Lion. > :Lion a owl:Class. > > OWL DL entails > > :LionSubject a owl:Thing. > > > Hence saying > :LionSubject a owl:Thing > > is redundant, even whatever the context says or does not say about the > language level > > Jeremy > > > -- 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 Thursday, 5 May 2005 04:16:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:17 GMT