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 07:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030526.072236.128878507.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@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: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:03:53 +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: Sun, 25 May 2003 20:14:57 +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: 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/
> >
> > Yes, agreed, but the OWL Full semantics and the OWL DL semantics diverge
> > here.
> >
> > peter
> 
> They diverge in such a sense that in an OWL (Full) world
> OWL DL models are all inconsistent; leaving no choice...
> Is there any reason why owl:Class can't be a subclass of rdfs:Class?
> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

owl:Class is a subclass of rdfs:Class

peter
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 07:22:46 GMT

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