- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:43:03 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote: > >> >>Really? Hmm. that is odd by itself. In OWL DL, rdfs:Class and >>owl:Class are identified, right? > > >In OWL Full, not OWL DL. Sorry, that's what I thought I had typed. OWL Full, yes. > >>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 ?!? >> > > >Correct. That is WIERD. Why would a graph not be in OWL DL if its logical consequences are 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 17:43:07 UTC