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: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:39:11 +0200
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDAEHPCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Can we ask WebOnt to add a pair of test cases justifying the difference?

I wonder whether a consensus comment might be something like:

[[
The RDF Core WG failed to persuade itself that there were, or were not, good
reasons for the distinction between rdfs:Class and owl:Class.

Can two test cases be added to the OWL Test Cases such that:
- the first uses owl:Class
- the second uses rdfs:Class
and they demonstrate the difference between the two concepts?

We note that while, for instance, owl:DatatypeProperty, bears no
relationship to owl:Class in the direct semantics, or in OWL DL, that the
only way of exploring this difference is through a triple such as:

owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:type owl:Class .

which, like the triple,

owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:type rdfs:Class .

is only syntactically permitted in OWL Full, where the two triples are
equivalent.
]]

Some might want a "If this is not possible ..." clause at the end.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 04:39:35 EDT

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