- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:14:50 +0000
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 11 Nov 2008, at 13:59, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Boris Motik > <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This declaration has no special meaning: owl:NamedIndividual is >> not assigned any special meaning in the vocabulary of OWL 2. The >> vocabulary element is used only to denote that 8:x is declared. >> >> Note that writing *:x rdf:type olw:Thing would be ambiguous. You >> get the same triple by serializing this axiom: >> >> ClassAssertion( owl:Thing *:x ) > > This is a useless axiom. Therefore I suggest that we consider it the > declaration. It's really not a good idea to try to overload tautologies with other meaning. This leads to things like the min 0 debacle. Declarations are declarations. (A simple example of how this can go pear shaped, this is an entailment but we don't want declarations to be entailments.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 14:11:57 UTC