Re: SEM: common class concept

Jeremy J. Carroll wrote:
> Jos De_Roo wrote:
>
> > Something that is an owl:Class is apparently *not*
> > an owl:Thing in OWL DL, whereas it *is* in OWL Full:
> >
> >   ex:x rdf:type owl:Class.
> > =>
> >   ex:x rdf:type owl:Thing.
>
>
> This entailment is explicitly not a DL entailment because of syntactic
> restrictions on entailments (i.e. the separated vocab).
>
> Once again we see that a test case that really did show that owl:Class
and
> rdfs:Class with different extension would be a bug.

Well, I understood from Peter that there *are*
classes that do *not* belong to owl:Class
such as eg rdfs:Class.
I believe Peter was speaking semantics wise
so there is a contradiction if we express this in OWL Full
both
rdfs:Class rdf:type _:x. _:x owl:complementOf owl:Class.
and
rdfs:Class rdf:type owl:Class.
can't be the case...

(same discussion for owl:Thing btw)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/