W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: WOWG: agenda Aug 15 telecon

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0208191238330.9559-100000@tux.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT