Another Comment on Owl Ref {was: Re: Denotation of owl:Class)

Oh dear, I was hoping there was good reason for making the 
distinction.  Can someone confirm Jeremy's view.

If Jeremy is right, I can't avoid suggesting another comment:

RDFCore has been advised that Owl would still work correctly if term 
owl:Class were replaced by rdfs:Class.

RDFCore therefore requests that the term owl:Class be dropped and replaced 
by rdfs:Class as this helps clarify the relationship between OWL and RDF(S) 
and eliminates possible confusion caused by the introduction of unnecessary 
redundant terms.

Brian


At 19:43 25/04/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Brian:
> >  If its ok to feed only
> > some of the semantics to a DL reasoner, why not stick to rdfs:Class but 
> let
> > it have only a limited understanding of Class?
>
>I believe this statement is technically correct.
>
>i.e. globally replace owl:Class by rdfs:Class in OWL S&AS and everything 
>still
>works.
>
>You cannot say owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class or the opposite in OWL
>Lite and OWL DL so the need for this distinction is moot.
>
>Jeremy