W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > September 2003

Re: OWL CR feedback: owl:Class 'vs' rdfs:Class causing pain. Is owl:Class really needed?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:06:00 -0500
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, public-webont-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1063854360.5534.531.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

Pat, this is perhaps a useful perspective on
the matter, but what's at issue in this
public-webont-comments forum is whether the
question is answered by the OWL specs.

Please try to answer the question from
the text of the specs. If you guys just
want to discuss this stuff free-form, please
use www-rdf-logic or whatever.

On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 21:35, pat hayes wrote:
> [...]
> >Are all RDF classes OWL classes?
> 
> No. RDFS has a more general notion of class than OWL has. In 
> particular, rdfs:Class is not an OWL class.
> 
> >and vice-versa?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >Can this be expressed
> >with (rdfs):subClassOf?
> 
> Yes, in RDFS:
> 
> owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class.
> 
> However, this fact is 'invisible' in OWL because of the restrictions 
> which have been placed on the expressivity of OWL syntax

[...]


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 23:06:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:29 GMT