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

Re: raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this effect Test LC?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 04:56:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030525.045643.09105592.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this effect Test LC?
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 01:27:51 +0200

> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
> > Subject: Re: raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this effect
> Test LC?

[...]

> > Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 23:09:49 +0200
> > Well, in a certain sense none of owl:Class, owl:DatatypeProperty,
> > owl:ObjectProperty, and probably quite a few other bits of OWL vocabulary
> > are not *needed*.  However, it is *desirable* to have them around.
> 
> Could there be a class that is an rdfs:Class but not an owl:Class?
> If so, is there an example of such a class?
> (not talking about illegal OWL Lite or OWL DL documents)

rdfs:Class is one example

peter
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2003 04:56:55 GMT

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