- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
- To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> Subject: Re: third version of semantics document Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:38:05 -0400 > At 10:48 AM -0400 8/28/02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >As an indication of how things can go wrong in a complicated specification, > >Pat's document is very close to implying that all RDFS classes and > >properties are OWL objects. > > [snip] > > > > >peter > > Peter, for those of us who are not as logically inclined as you, > could you make it clear why the above would be a problem and what the > consequences would be? If someone asked me "Should RDFS classes and > properties be OWL objects" I would have assumed the answer should be > yes > thanks > JH The first paragraph of section 1 of the document states that individuals are not classes or properties. QED peter
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 06:48:59 UTC