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

Re: TEST: 6 of 7: empty universe example,

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:25:44 +0100
Message-ID: <3F1FFA78.8090906@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org


Personally I prefer the current rule (empty allowed), over the LC rule 
(empty prohibited, but singleton universe allowed).

I guess if Mehrdad wanted to push on this I would end up needing to do more 
work than Peter, but I wouldn't object strongly.

Jeremy


Jim Hendler wrote:

> At 12:59 PM +0300 7/24/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
>> Mehrdad:
>>
>>>  In OWL-DL (as in FOL), the universe of the interpretation is always
>>>  required to be a non-empty set.
>>
>>
>>
>> that was true in the LC documents; however a careful reeading of the 
>> current
>> editors draft of the direct semantics does not indicate that the
>> interpretation of owl:Thing must be non-empty.
>>
>> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty agnostic on this one, but is there some benefit to allowing 
> this odd case - hard for me to believe it will ever come up in practice, 
> and it does seem to be confusing people -- Peter, why the change?
>  -JH
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 11:28:48 GMT

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