- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 18:26:40 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
I've never thought that far, but I think you are right
(and we indeed need more simple testcases)
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jeremy Carroll
<jjc@hpl.hp.com> To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Sent by: cc:
www-webont-wg-requ Subject: Annotations and entailments
est@w3.org
2003-01-18 03:36
PM
(During my on-going work on checking the mapping rules I came across this
bug)
Semantic layering problem, potential showstopper.
FileA:
<owl:Class rdf:ID="example">
<rdfs:comment>An explanation</rdfs:comment>
</owl:Class>
FileB:
<owl:Class rdf:ID="example">
<rdfs:comment>A different explanation</rdfs:comment>
</owl:Class>
Currently
FileA DL-entails FileB
and
FileB DL-entails FileA
While being IMO simply incorrect; this also breaks semantic layering since
in
OWL Full (like in RDF) neither entailment holds.
Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 18 January 2003 12:27:20 UTC