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: Mon, 26 May 2003 06:57:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030526.065752.93338847.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: raised in comment: owl:class still needed? Does this effect Test LC?
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 11:48:30 +0300

> 
> Peter:
> > 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.
> 
> My reading of this thread is that there are no test cases that demonstrate the 
> distinction except for ones in OWL Full which we could call either way (i.e. 
> they demonstrate that owl:Class and rdfs:Class are not the same thing not why 
> they need to be different).
> 
> Now we have to drill down on "*desirable*".
> 
> Peter does not give an account of this important word.

Well, I believe that I have demonstrated the desirability of not changing
the situation in several messages, including one that says in part

> >The RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL DL heavily depends on owl:Class (more
> >precisely, on IOC, the class extension of owl:Class).  If the distinction
> >between owl:Class and rdfs:Class was removed the semantics would be quite
> >different.

I'm not even sure that an RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL DL, as distinct
from an RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL full, would even be possible.  In
particular, how could one arrange it so that the appropriate lists and
descriptions existed?

[...]

>   Hence I see it as down to those who oppose making a change here to 
> articulate either:
> 
> 1. Why this distinction is *necessary*
> or
> 2. Why the straw poll judgement that the distinction is not *desirable* was 
> incorrect.

Which straw poll?

> Successfully completing (1) should convince the group; working on aesthetics 
> (2) inevitably takes longer.
> 
> Jeremy

peter
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 06:58:09 GMT

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