- From: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:07:11 +0000
- To: "Turner, David" <davidt@hp.com>
- CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi David, > Should NC (etc) be defined as a set of *names* of OWL classes (etc)? Yes, indeed. Of course, the fact that these are names is kind of implicit since these sets are part of a vocabulary, but we should probably say this explicitly. Thanks, Bernardo > I > was under the impression that the sets of classes, individuals, and so > on are still disjoint for computational reasons, and the syntax makes > clear which interpretation of a particular name one should use at any > time. > > (The repeated use of the letter N also suggests that names are intended) > > Cheers, > > Dave > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-semantics-20061219/ > >
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 17:10:39 UTC