- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:46:47 -0400
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Well, certainly not what I was expecting. I have two major comments: 1/ This semantics is much closer the the DAML+OIL model theory than to my OWL model theory. In particular, it does not have any of the following sorts of entailments E1/ John in Student intersect Employee entails John in Employee interset Student E2/ John in atleast 2 friend entails John in atleast 1 friend The absence of these entailments has major impact throughout the document, particularly in the uncompleted sections. The main difference I see between this semantics and the DAML+OIL model theory is in its stance with respect to classes as instances. 2/ The document claims (implicitly) that all RDFS graphs are GHOWL graphs (in Section 2 just before the syntactic characterization of OWL nodes). This is incorrect, as GHOWL graphs must use list vocabulary correctly. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 13:46:56 UTC