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: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 20:14:57 +0200
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD53E573F.D14F7223-ONC1256D31.005FF9B5-C1256D31.00644021@agfa.be>


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: 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

Expressing that fact in OWL Full is

  rdf:Class rdf:type _:x.
  _:x owl:complementOf owl:Class.

but that is in plain contradiction with

  rdfs:Class rdf:type owl:Class.

which is derived per RDF MT rdfs3 from

  owl:equivalentClass rdfs:range owl:Class.
  owl:Class owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Class.


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2003 14:15:23 GMT

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