- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:00:08 +0000 [...] > Since the OWL 1.0 design solves this problem, in the manner given by > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.19-Classes-as-instances > [[ > Part of OWL Full. > ]] [The following line is not part of the resolution.] > (and syntactically excluded from OWL DL) In fact, the normative abstract syntax for OWL DL allows classes as instances. >From http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html: [...] a URI reference can be the identifier of a class or datatype as well as the identifier of a property as well as the identifier of an individual, although the ontology cannot then be translated into an OWL DL RDF graph. > I personally see a variation in which this becomes > > "Part of OWL Full; syntactically permitted in OWL DL, but with weaker > semantics." > > as a backward step Well, I see this variation as the variation that is embodied in OWL 1.0. > Jeremy peter
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 12:52:18 UTC