- From: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:08:19 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:09:00 UTC
Ivan, I am not sure what you are trying to say. public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 05/04/2005 09:15:50 AM: > My (editorial) comment refers to Approach #2, but is also valid elsewhere. > > The text (as well as the code) says: > > :LionSubject a :Lion. > > and, sort of, makes the implicit conclusion that this also means > > :LionSubject a owl:Thing. > > However, as far as I understand, this is not true per se *unless* we know in advance that > we are in OWL DL or OWL Light. It is true in all dialects of OWL. Is there a document somewhere that states otherwise? > If we do not know that about an ontology, then there is > nothing that precludes :LionSubject to be also an owl:Class. Yes, that much is true for OWL Full, but this does not lead to your conclusion above. > Because the essence of the > text is to emphasize using individuals at that point to make it clearly DL, I think it > would be better to explicitly say: > > :LionSubject > a owl:Thing; > a :Lion . Well, that is not incorrect, but it is redundant. You do not need to explicitly say this in any dialect of OWL. In OWL Full *every* resource is an OWL:Thing, in OWL DL being an OWL:Thing is entailed by being and isntance of a class. -Chris
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:09:00 UTC