- 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
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 UTC