W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: the relationships between OWL species

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:56:56 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f25ba76c260b1e9@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 6:41 -0500 2/17/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: RE: the relationships between OWL species
>Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:29:39 +0100
>>  >
>>  > I believe that it is the intent of the working group that all OWL DL
>>  > documents are OWL Full documents, which is what 2/ goes against.
>>  >
>>  I certainly intended to convey that ... can you give me a test case please?
>>  i.e. an OWL DL document that is not OWL Full by my wording.
><owl:Class rdf:ID="owl:xxx" />
>is an OWL DL document, but not an OWL Full document.
>>  I would regard that as an error.
>>  Jeremy

This definitely sounds like a problem to me

<owl:Class rdf:ID="owl:xxx" />

I think that either the above should not be in DL, or we should fix 
the rules w/respect to Full (allowing this in Full).  My preference 
is to allow these things in DL and Full, but if we don't, we should 
be consistent -- I believe that either of these are with past WG 
decisions but that what Peter cited (all RDF documents are in Owl 
Full; all DL documents are also in Full) is preferred based on past 
WG decisions.

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 11:57:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC