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

Re: WOWG: minutes Jul 10 telecon

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:21:58 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF742E4DC3.C11A9268-ONC1256D5F.006E7ED2-C1256D5F.006FDFC7@agfa.be>


[...]


> > 22. RDFCore Comments on OWL Reference
> > ACTION: Frank van Harmelen to respond to one open element (rdfs:Class
> > vs. owl:Class)
>
> WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH
>
> ACTION PatH: draft rationale for rdfs:Class vs. owl:Class situation
> (less controversial than last time)

I was joining late and missed the disicussion; my bad
What I was also trying to say at the end of the telecon
(but had no chance due to sound prloblems) was that
I am stuck at the following:

When D is a consistent OWL Lite/DL document then
it is not necessarily a consistent OWL Full document

for example the document

owl:Thing owl:oneOf _:x.
_:x rdf:first eg:a.
_:x rdf:rest _:y.
_:y rdf:first eg:b.
_:y rdf:rest rdf:nil.

seems to be DL consistent but Full inconsistent.

We try to make our assumptions explicit in a "global" sense
(using URI's, triples, implications and some such)
and I can't see those for owl:Class and owl:Thing
(seems to me that everybody could mean it's own local thing)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 16:22:09 GMT

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