- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:38:53 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 21 Nov 2007, at 14:31, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > > ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be > necessarily infinite? > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ > > Raised by: Jeremy Carroll > On product: > > In this description the 'universe' means the class extension of > owl:Thing. > > > In OWL 1.0 Full, the universe is necessarily infinite. > > In OWL 1.0 DL, the universe is required to be non-empty. > > The compatibility between OWL Full and OWL DL could be enhanced by > requiring the universe to be infinite in both cases. > > Looking at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007AprJun/0131 > and related messages, this is not difficult to implement. I don't think that this is really a email related to this issue: in OWL DL and OWL 1.1, we can write - an ontology such that all of their models are of finite cardinality - an ontology such that all of their models are of infinite cardinality I think that what you suggest is to change the semantics of (OWL DL and?) OWL 1.1 so that every interpretation domain contains, in addition to "owl:thing"s, infinitely many other elements -- is this the case? Cheers, Uli > >> From a modelling point of view, any model with a finite domain of >> discourse, would model that domain as a subclass of owl:Thing; and >> the domain owl:Thing would be reserved as everything in a Web >> context, for which it is difficult to give a finite bound. > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 18:39:39 UTC