- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:25:44 +0100
- 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 UTC