- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:47:13 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <478F2421.7040400@w3.org>
Boris, I need a clarification. OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > 4. Proposed solution > -------------------- > > The general approach to handling this issue would be along the lines of AllDifferent from OWL 1.0. Consider again axiom (1). If n is equal to 2, then, to be compatible with OWL 1.0, we might translate the axiom into (2). If n is different from 2, however, we would translate it into the following RDF triples: > > (8) _:x rdf:type owl11:AllEquivalentClasses > (9) _:x owl11:members T(SEQ c_1 ... c_n) My understanding is that EquivalentClasses( c_1 ... c_n ) does not define any new entity, but makes a statement about existing ones. However _:x rdf:type owl11:AllEquivalentClasses _:x owl11:members T(SEQ c_1 ... c_n) introduces a new resource (_:x) and makes statement on that new resource. Are these two really the same? I may have missed something, though Ivan > > There was some objection to the vocabulary bloat. However, most users are unlikely to deal with RDF directly anyway: they will use editors for their ontologies, and these editors can hide the underlying complexity. > > > Regards, > > Boris > > > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 09:47:16 UTC