Re: owl:subClassOf ? [was: Re: working on it]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Jan Grant wrote:

> On 27 Jun 2003, Brian McBride wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 23:44, pat hayes wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >
> > > >If so, then Owl want a stronger notion of subClassOf than that proposed
> > > >in this document for rdfs:subClassOf.
> > >
> > > It will want to impose stronger conditions on the meaning of that term, yes.
> >
> > I had my stronger/weaker notions mixed up apparently.  I had taken
> > stronger to mean more restrictive, i.e. that
> >
> >   c1 owl:subClassOf c2
> >
> > |=
> >
> >   c1 rdfs:subClassOf c2
> >
> > But that isn't the case, right?
>
> Can someone please provide me with a concrete counterexample of this, if
> it's not the case?

Ah, s'ok. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Brian's use of
entailment notation is wrong here. Certainly you can _conclude_ using
OWL (various flavours) that the owl subclass applies when you can't
rdfs-conclude the equivalent relationship. however, if c1 owl:sco c2
then c1 rdfs:sco c2 is entailed, surely, because of what "entails" means
(all satisfying interpretations of the first MUST satisfy the latter).
Right?

-- 
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/
Unfortunately, I have a very good idea how fast my keys are moving.