- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:49:38 -0700
- To: "NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP" <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Marco, > 1) Approach 3 : > > You write : "We can take the second option in Approach 2" > > The figure seems to be relative to the first option ? am i > wrong ? you are right -- I'll fix this. > 2) Approach 1 : > The first consideration is : "The resulting ontology is in > OWL Full" > > I think that what could be vvery interesting would be to give a little > and very simple example of what does this categorization concretely > imply; indeed it's not always clear to clearly understand the direct > consequences of such a fact. In this particular case, it means (and DL folks, please, correct me if I am wrong) that DL reasoners such as RACER simply won't accept this ontology or will ignore the property values that are classes. I agree with you that we probably need a document on implications of moving from OWL FL to OWL Full but this discussion is probably out of the scope of the "classes as values" document. Natasha
Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 15:52:41 UTC