- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 18:09:09 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 12:00 15/12/2002 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >[I'm restricting my response to the part concerning the semantics document.] Thanks Peter. [...] >Hmm. The construction > > ... these three are ... and .... > >seems to me to be quite explicit that it is the three that are pairwise >disjoint. Moreover, pairwise disjoint only makes sense for a group larger >than two, so it would not apply to rdfs:Class and owl:Class, even in the >absence of any other indications that it might. You are right. I just didn't grok it immediately. [...] >To make matters explicitly clear, I'll change the wording to > > There are two different styles of using OWL. > In the more free-wheeling style, called OWL/Full here, > the three domain-circumscription classes, owl:Thing, owl:Class and > owl:Property, are identified with their RDFS counterparts. > In OWL/Full, as in RDFS, resources can be both an individual and a > class, or, in fact, even an individual, a class, and a property. > In the more restrictive style, called OWL/DL here, > the three domain-circumscription classes are different from their RDFS > counterparts and, moreover, pairwise disjoint. Ta. > > Which is interesting in its own right, as it means that OWL/DL can't > handle > > datatypes that are both classes and interpretation properties, which I'd > > been assuming was ok. > >Well, datatypes are not OWL classes in OWL/DL or OWL/Lite, OK - then not a problem > so I suppose >that they could belong to both rdfs:Class and rdf:Property in OWL/DL or >OWL/Lite. I'm not sure why one would want this, however. Some folks have expressed a preference for being able to use a single URI as both the class and the interpretation property. Brian
Received on Sunday, 15 December 2002 13:07:53 UTC