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

Re: SEM: common class concept

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:48:41 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC24C27C7.CF0EB1E0-ONC1256D38.0077B744-C1256D38.0077D2A2@agfa.be>


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/
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2003 17:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT