Re: GoodRelations Light from Alan Ruttenberg on 2011-05-18 (semantic-web@w3.org from May 2011)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 18:42:20 -0400
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Wgpmecrm1DG-0-=+BmhJn9xRGDg@mail.gmail.com>

"DisjointClasses(:AnonymousThing owl:NamedIndividual)" using the OWL 2
RDF-Based semantics? That owl:NamedIndividual thing has always worried me,
but perhaps someone who completely groks the RDF-based semantics can say for
sure whether this says it or not. That would be OWL, btw - no need for
RDF(S).

-Alan

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>wrote:

>
> On 18 May 2011, at 19:47, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>
> > Beyond vocabulary issues, seems to me that in OWL you can't express the
> constraint that instances of a given class should be anonymous resources.
>
> ? Neither can you in RDF(S).
> --e.
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 22:56:03 UTC