Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs)
Date: 07 Jun 2002 16:56:42 -0500

> 
> On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 16:46, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> [...]
> > > i.e. there shouldn't be any axioms with existentials in
> > > the conclusions. (there's a name for that fragment of FOL, no?
> > > is that horn clauses? I often forget).
> > 
> > All I remember for the moment is "Clause Normal Form"
> > and indeed no existentials in the conclusions
> > but functional terms could be there I think...
> 
> Functional terms and existentials buy you the
> same power/grief.
> 
> For OWL 1.0, I (presently) think we should stop
> short of that sort of thing.
> 

Stop short of what?  Functional terms?  Has anyone proposed functional
terms?  Existentials?  RDF has a form of existential.  Are you proposing
that OWL not include blank nodes?

[...]

> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 

peter