W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > June 2003

owl:Entity

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:02:06 -0700
Message-ID: <005001c33b87$102611e0$be7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "www-rdf-logic at W3C" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Cc: "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>

To me, the primary motivation for introducing owl:Entity
is to get rid of the confusion between Entity, Class and Property.
Entities are the (primary) things that have Properties.
Defining Properties without Entities is meaningless.

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>
Cc: <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: Restriction, DeprecatedClass in OWL Language Reference 31 March
2003


> Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0090.html
>
>  > From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>
>  > Subject: Re: Restriction, DeprecatedClass  in OWL Language Reference
> 31 March 2003
>  >
snip
>  > 4. It would be desirable to define an owl:Entity class,
>  > disjoint from rdf:Property, which would include as subClasses
>  >     owl:AllDifferent
>  >     rdfs:Container
>  >     owl:DeprecatedClass
>  >     owl:Enumeration
>  >     owl:Intersection
>  >     rdf:List
>  >     owl:Ontology
>  >     owl:Union
>  > 5. The above would produce the Class hierarchy
>  >     owl:Thing
>  >         owl:Entity
>  >         rdf:Property
>  >         rdf:Statement
>  > where Entity,Property,Statement are disjoint and exhaustive.
>  > This hierarchy is very meaningful, from both  metaphysical
>  > and epistemological viewpoints.
>  > Entity is the class of primary things that exist.
>  > Property is the class of Entity properties plus meta properties
>  >     (properties of things other than entities).
>  > Statement is the class of relations between things.
>
> The WG does not see the rationale for introducing owl:Entity at this
> time. I would suggest the discussion of this issue at the
> rdf-logic@w3.org discussion list.
>
> Thanks again for your comments. Please let us know, cc-ing
> public-webont-comments@w3.org, whether this response is satisfactory.
>
> Guus Schreiber
>
> [1] http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 22:40:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:46 GMT