Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon

Peter:
> From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> Subject: Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon
> Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:50 +0300
>
> > On
> > C/ Semantic layering bug
> >
> > again
> >
> > I am beginning to understand ...
> >
> > with this suggestion we would have
> >
> > *empty*
> >
> > does not entail
> >
> > _:b rdf:type owl:Ontology
> >
> > in both DL and Full?
>
> Yes.

Then how's the reasoning for testcase Ontology-002 [2]?
i.e.

{
:Automobile rdf:type owl:Class .
:Car rdf:type owl:Class .
:Car owl:equivalentClass first:Automobile .
:car rdf:type owl:Thing .
:car rdf:type first:Car .
:auto rdf:type owl:Thing .
:auto rdf:type first:Automobile .
}

OWL Lite entails

{
:Automobile rdf:type owl:Class .
:Car rdf:type owl:Class .
:car rdf:type owl:Thing .
:car rdf:type :Automobile .
:auto rdf:type owl:Thing .
:auto rdf:type first:Car .
_:b rdf:type owl:Ontology .
}


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Ontology/Manifest002