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

Re: draft response to #owlref-rdfcore-owl-class-denotation

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:59:58 +0200
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDOELHCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Pat "it might be controversial"

Dan had proposed rejecting the comment on the grounds that we did not have a
worked out design. While I would vote against that; I don't think I can
seriously degree with the reasoning (other than by working out a design,
which I haven't the energy for). [A problem is that the lack of an
alternative design is enough of a motive to postpone an issue, but
postponing this issue does not make much sense - so it has to be rejected].

Pat's message has lots to disagree with, which can be summed up by

rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf ?

I don't find Pat's understanding of OWL DL anything other than mystical. A
phrase like: "The OWL-DL notion of
what counts as a class is more limited than the RDFS notion"

no - the two ideas are written down using different marks in different
formal systems and we cannot compare them except within the one formal
framework in which we have made them comparable (OWL Full). In that
framework they are equivalent (have the same class extension).

Any attempt to make such a comparison outside the formal framework is
mythology: taking some pictures inside our heads a little too seriously.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 13:59:52 GMT

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