W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > December 2002

Re: owl:sameClassAs

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 18:09:09 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com

At 12:00 15/12/2002 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>[I'm restricting my response to the part concerning the semantics document.]

Thanks Peter.


>Hmm.  The construction
>         ... these three are ... and ....
>seems to me to be quite explicit that it is the three that are pairwise
>disjoint.   Moreover, pairwise disjoint only makes sense for a group larger
>than two, so it would not apply to rdfs:Class and owl:Class, even in the
>absence of any other indications that it might.

You are right.  I just didn't grok it immediately.


>To make matters explicitly clear, I'll change the wording to
>   There are two different styles of using OWL.
>   In the more free-wheeling style, called OWL/Full here,
>   the three domain-circumscription classes, owl:Thing, owl:Class and
>   owl:Property, are identified with their RDFS counterparts.
>   In OWL/Full, as in RDFS, resources can be both an individual and a
>   class, or, in fact, even an individual, a class, and a property.
>   In the more restrictive style, called OWL/DL here,
>   the three domain-circumscription classes are different from their RDFS
>   counterparts and, moreover, pairwise disjoint.


> > Which is interesting in its own right, as it means that OWL/DL can't 
> handle
> > datatypes that are both classes and interpretation properties, which I'd
> > been assuming was ok.
>Well, datatypes are not OWL classes in OWL/DL or OWL/Lite,

OK - then not a problem

>  so I suppose
>that they could belong to both rdfs:Class and rdf:Property in OWL/DL or
>OWL/Lite.  I'm not sure why one would want this, however.

Some folks have expressed a preference for being able to use a single URI 
as both the class and the interpretation property.

Received on Sunday, 15 December 2002 13:07:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:28 UTC