- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:18:11 -0500
- To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Perhaps. I have to say this solution strikes me as being as ugly as owl:deprecatedClass. It would be good to have another solution. -Alan On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > I agree with Bijan: we should not overload vocabulary in the syntax. > > Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk] >> Sent: 11 November 2008 14:15 >> To: Alan Ruttenberg >> Cc: Boris Motik; W3C OWL Working Group >> Subject: Re: What is the rationale for "*:x rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual" ? >> >> 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 Wednesday, 12 November 2008 02:18:46 UTC