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

RE: DTTF: summary (gasp!)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:01:41 +0200
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: "jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "jonathan" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF09821247.5788DECB-ONC1256BC3.00471695@agfa.be>

> > [...]
> >
> > > In particular the following implication that is valid under RDFS will
> > > not hold under OWL.
> > >
> > > eg:prop rdfs:subClassOf owl:Restriction .
> > > _:x rdf:type eg:prop .
> > >
> > > entails
> > >
> > > _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> >
> > let's decide on this one
> > for me this entailment is OK under OWL (as well as under RDFS)
> >
> > --
> > Jos
> >
>
> Making owl restrictions be elements of the domain of discourse is one of
> the most, if not the most, dangerous things to do.
>
> That said, it would be possible to have the above entailment go through
> (maybe) even if owl restrictions are not elements of the domain of
> discourse.

really!?
can you please elaborate a bit on that?

>            But if owl restrictions are not elements of the domain of
> discourse, why bother with things like this?
>
> peter

--
Jos
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 09:02:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT