Re: ISSUE-73 (infinite universe): REPORTED: Should owl:Thing be necessarily infinite?

Uli Sattler wrote:

> 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?
> 

correct


 > 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
 >

The relevance of the quoted e-mail is that such a change places no 
burden on implementors.

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 10:39:09 UTC