- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:00:17 +0100 (BST)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Brian McBride wrote: > What is bothering me is that the denotation of owl:Class seems to depend on > what is processing it, and I guess I'm making the naive user assumption, > that owl:Class denotes the same thing (horribly deep philosophical rathole > opens in front of me) wherever its used i.e. either > > rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf owl:Class . > > is true in the 'real world' or its not. If its true, then why is owl:Class > needed? If its false, why is OWL FULL asserting its true. It's not a true/false distinction, it's a theorem/nontheorem one, I think. owl:Class exists so that OWL DL and OWL Lite reasoners don't have to tackle the knots at the top of RDF's class hierarchy. jan (IANADL) PS. Incidentally, a rdfs:subClassOf b . b rdfs:subClassOf a . don't mean that a and b denote the same thing; it means their class extensions are the same. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Work #90: As many pseudo-intellectual sycophants as necessary to make one inarticulate scotsman think he's a genius in command of The Profound.
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 09:00:38 UTC