W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Extensional interpretation of rdfs:subClassOf?

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:18:24 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040112130957.025951e0@127.0.0.1>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

In message [1], Peter F. Patel-Schneider says:
[[
As far as the logic underlying OWL is concerned they are exactly the same.

   :A rdfs:subClassOf :B
   :B rdfs:subClassOf :A
entails
   :A owl:equivalentClass :B

and

   :A owl:equivalentClass :B
entails
   :A rdfs:subClassOf :B
   :B rdfs:subClassOf :A
]]

I understood that Owl classes were defined extensionally, and would 
therefore expect that owl:equivalentClass was an extensional equivalence, 
and that RDF classes are defined intensionally.

Does Owl strengthen the interpretation of rdfs:subClassOf?  It seems that 
would be legitimate under the semantic extension regime set out in the 
semantics specification (True in RDF remains True in Owl), but I wonder 
about the wisdom (and potential for interoperability failure) if the 
interpretation of RDF core vocabulary can be modified by other specifications.

#g
--

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2004Jan/0030.html


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 15:47:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:04:05 UTC