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

LANG: owl:Thing subClassOf owl:Thing

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:00:10 +0100
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MABBLGKMPIJFCKFGDBEPOEHHCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Working through the abstract syntax it seems that virtually any OWL Lite or
OWL DL file needs to include the somewhat interesting triples

owl:Thing rdf:type owl:Class .
owl:Thing subClassOf owl:Thing .

Have I misunderstood? It might be a typo in the abstract syntax mappings.

e.g.

suppose we want to say

<a> <p> <b> .

To get this triple,
we have to use the rule from the mappings:

Individual(<iID>
      <annotation1> … <annotationn>
      type(<type1>)…type(<typen>)
      (<pID1> <value1>) … (<pIDn> <valuen>))

which has a T(owl:Thing) in its production.

This must use the classID rule that includes

owl:Thing rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing .

in its production.

I don't see the need for the

<classID> rdf:subClassOf owl:Thing .

triple in the second row of the table, ever.
Is this not implicit with the

<classID> rdf:type owl:Class .

triple?

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 10:56:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT