Re: Legal to have a recursive definition of a class?

I wrote, in response to Roger's post -
>
> [Roger L. Costello]
> > Is this legal:
> >
> > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Juicer">
> >        <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Appliance"/>
> >        <rdfs:subClassOf>
> >               <owl:Restriction>
> >                       <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#makesObsolete"/>
> >                       <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#Juicer"/>
> >              </owl:Restriction>
> >       </rdfs:subClassOf>
> > </owl:Class>
> >
>
> I do not think it would indicate what you expect, though.  It says loosely
> that a "Juicer" is an Applicance, intersected with some class that has a
> particular property whose range is Juicer.  ...

I see that I missed that it is not just "some class" that has the property,
but only the class of Juicers.  So a individual Juicer could makesObsolete
another individual Juicer.  The part of my post that still remains, however,
is the question about what Roger actually wanted to convey -

> Were you trying to capture the concept that one __model__ of Juicer can be
> made obsolete by another, one individual instance of a Juicer could be
made
> obsolete by another instance of a Juicer, or that one entire class of
> applicances can be made obsolete by another?
>

Cheers,

Tom P