- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:33 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Thanks to Martin Merry for this one. > >Going with the current S&AS wording, we might read it as saying that: >- given an RDF document >- we examine it syntactically >- if it is in OWL DL then we apply the direct semantics >- otherwise we apply the OWL Full semantics > >(Martin was actually working from the consensus resolution of 5.3) > >Document A: >eg:a rdfs:subClassOf eg:b . > >Document B: >_:b rdf:type owl:Thing . > >Document A* >eg:a rdfs:subClassOf eg:b . >eg:a rdf:type owl:Class . >eg:b rdf:type owl:Class. > >Document A** >eg:a rdfs:subClassOf eg:b . >eg:a rdf:type owl:Class . >eg:b rdf:type owl:Class. >owl:Thing owl:equivalentClass owl:Nothing . > >A is not in OWL DL, Really? Hmm. that is odd by itself. In OWL DL, rdfs:Class and owl:Class are identified, right? Now, A rdfs-entails eg:a rdfs:subClassOf eg:b . eg:a rdf:type rdfs:Class . eg:b rdf:type rdfs:Class . so it presumably must OWL-full-entail A*. So A OWL-full entails A* , and A* is in OWL DL but A is not in OWL DL ?!? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 16:45:42 UTC