- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:51:56 -0500 (EST)
- To: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU
From: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Subject: owl:equivalentClass and rds:subClassOf Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:53:15 +0100 > Follow-up of a debate in Protégé list. > > Holger Knublauch wrote: > > "... in Protege there is no way to distinguish between > > :A rdfs:subClassOf :B > :B rdfs:subClassOf :A > > and > > :A owl:equivalentClass :B > > because they are internally mapped into mutual superclasses..." > > The reciprocal rdfs:subClassOf declares a logical equivalence of definition > (intensional), whereas owl:equivalentClass declares an equivalence at > instance level (extensional). Umm, where did you get this impression? > Should those declarations be kept distinct or not by a conformant OWL tool? > And if yes, what would be the logical relationship, if any, between the > former and the latter? 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 > Bernard Vatant > Senior Consultant > Knowledge Engineering > Mondeca - www.mondeca.com > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Monday, 12 January 2004 07:52:19 UTC