W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

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

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:30:50 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF590F2E64.629C9F20-ONC1256D15.00702670-C1256D15.0070B1A9@agfa.be>



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

all I know is that in OWL *full*

owl:Class owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Class.

i.e. they have the same ICEXT
(but are not owl:sameAs)


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Sunday, 27 April 2003 16:32:08 EDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Jeremy Carroll: "Re: s+as review (fwd)"
Previous message: Jeremy Carroll: "Re: Draft RDFCore Comments on Owl Reference"
Maybe in reply to: Brian McBride: "Another Comment on Owl Ref {was: Re: Denotation of owl:Class)"
Next in thread: Jeremy Carroll: "RE: Another Comment on Owl Ref {was: Re: Denotation of owl:Class)"
Reply: Jeremy Carroll: "RE: Another Comment on Owl Ref {was: Re: Denotation of owl:Class)"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:02 EDT