- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:39:27 -0400 (EDT)
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: <nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, pat hayes wrote: > > >Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> writes: > > > >> To the best of my recollection, the discussion of the precise > >> differences between daml:class and rdfs:class, which seems to carry > >> over into our current decision-making and issues, was discussed in > >> the DAML joint committee, and not really in this WG > > > >I think that we might have a related issue with the relation between > >rdfs:Resource and owl:Thing. Is rdfs:Resource a subclass of owl:Thing > >or vice versa, or are they the same? > > I would suggest that > > owl:Thing rdfs:SubClassOf rdfs:Resource. > > In general, OWL can place more restrictions on its universe than RDFS > can, so RDFS interpretations might well contain things that are > OWL-impossible. Interesting. I was expecting it to be the other way around: I had it in mind that DAML+OIL (and maybe OWL) admitted the literals as members of the class Thing, whereas RDF doesn't appear to do so. Dan -- mailto:danbri@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 12:39:30 UTC