Re: Comment: Representing Classes As Property Values on the Semantic Web

O.k. It seems that I could not convince anyone:-(. The reasons of my comments were purely 
didactic when reading the text and *not* technical (all arguments here and in the other 
mails are obviously true and technically clear). But it seems that I am alone with my 
feelings about this...

As I said in my direct reply to Natasha, this is not a show stopper, so you can close the 
issue.

Ivan


Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> In OWL Full
> 
>  :LionSubject a :Lion.
> 
> OWL Full entails
> 
>  :LionSubject a owl:Thing.
> 
> ===
> 
> In OWL DL or OWL Lite any syntactically valid ontology containing the 
> triple
> 
>  :LionSubject a :Lion.
> 
> for instance this one:
>  :LionSubject a :Lion.
>  :Lion a owl:Class.
> 
> OWL DL entails
> 
>  :LionSubject a owl:Thing.
> 
> 
> Hence saying
>  :LionSubject a owl:Thing
> 
> is redundant, even whatever the context says or does not say about the 
> language level
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman
W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices
C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/