- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:56:00 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Peter: > But how does that prevent some other agent from using that > URIref? Why is > owl:ABCDEF not (a QName that expands into) a valid URI that > can be used in > OWL? I don't see any hint that the working group is going to > ``control'' > the owl namespace to this extent. We have a duty to do so. > > > But why make them contradictions? I was trying to make them implementation defined behaviour. I could agree with your suggestion to do that syntactically. > > Well, we disagree on the meaning of just about everything in > an ontology, > including things like > > John a [intersectionOf A B] . > > so I don't see how ruling out misuses of OWL vocabularly will help the > situation too much. > Come Peter, we at least agree that: John a [intersectionOf A B] . entails John a B . > If you don't want to consider triples that misuse the OWL > vocabularly, then > why not just make them syntactically invalid? I would view > that as very > much clearer and cleaner. We don't control the syntax, but yes I think that would be plausible. OWL is defined over RDF graphs except ones that contain the specified triples. i.e. we do not define an OWL semantics for those graphs. That would even solve the layering problem in the sense that all RDFS entailments would then be OWL entailments (except those involving graphs which are not OWL graphs). The OWL model theory could have features like classes not in the domain of discourse even though this is a different philosophy from RDFS. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 06:57:16 UTC