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

On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 07:04, Brian McBride wrote:
> Oh dear, I was hoping there was good reason for making the 
> distinction.  Can someone confirm Jeremy's view.

I can't. I probably should be able to confirm or deny,
but I can't.

At first I was under the impression that owl:Thing
was disjoint from owl:Class and owl:Property, even
in OWL Full. But somebody told me that wasn't right;
in order to make the layering stuff work out,
owl:Thing is the same as rdfs:Resource in OWL Full;
at that point, I decided I didn't care enough
to count angels on heads of pins further; all the
test cases I'm interested in work the way I expect
them to work, so I'm fat-dumb-and-happy.

> 
> 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.

If any such motion is put to RDF Core, please record me as abstaining.

> 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
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/