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

Re: ISSUE 5.3, a non-mon example

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:45:33 -0500
Message-Id: <p0600121dbb28f3c2a351@[10.0.100.7]>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT