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

Re: ISSUE: owl:Class name misleading; try owl:Set?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 03 Jan 2003 10:19:58 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1041610798.22236.58.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 09:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE: owl:Class name misleading; try owl:Set?
> Date: 03 Jan 2003 09:12:14 -0600
> 
> > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 05:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > 
> > > > In fact, I asked that it be added to the owl schema:
> > > > 	owl:Thing owl:disjointFrom owl:Class.
> > > > 	owl:Thing owl:disjointFrom rdfs:Literal.
> > > > 	owl:Class owl:disjointFrom rdfs:Literal.
> > > > and I thought Mike or Pat said they'd do it... or at
> > > > least think about it.
> > > 
> > > This prevents classes from being instances in OWL/Full.
> > 
> > It prevents owl:Classes from being owl:Things;
> > It doesn't prevent owl:Classes from being rdf:Resources
> > nor does it prevent rdfs:Classes from being rdf:Resources.
> 
> Correct, I was being sloppy.  
> 
> > This is by design, no? Perhaps that's not the way other
> > folks understood the design, but that's what I had in mind when we
> > closed the layering issue.
> 
> OWL/Full does not have this situation.  In fact, it is not possible in
> OWL/Full, as 
> 1/ OWL/Full identifies the class extensions of owl:Thing and rdfs:Resource
>    (see Section 5.4 of AS&S);

Yes, I just re-read that.

That's not the design I had in mind when we closed the layering
issue. I don't think the way it's written is traceable to
any WG decision; nor is my position, meanwhile.
So I've asked (in my message of 01 Jan 2003 14:09:40 -0600)
that the editors change it to the design I prefer:
owl:Thing is smaller than rdfs:Resource, even in owl:Full.
Rationale: it seems easier to justify the separate
owl:Thing term this way.

If you're declining my request, I'll ask that it get on the whole
group's agenda unless I see a more satisfactory reason why
the design I prefer isn't the way to go.



p.s. re

>   (see Section 5.4 of AS&S);

please cite docs under discussion by URI (and date,
where the document changes); that citation matches both
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/rdfs.html#5.4
and
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-semantics-20021108/rdfs.html#5.4
In this case, I suppose either will work, but still...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 11:19:43 GMT

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