RE: definitionOf from Jon Hanna on 2002-11-18 (public-webont-comments@w3.org from November 2002)

From: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:26:35 -0000
To: <public-webont-comments@w3.org>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLCBLIMDOPKMOPHLHCEMKEJAA.jon@spin.ie>

> I contend that the OWL language [1] is missing three
> essential properties:
>
>       definitionOf
>       speciesOf
>       individualOf

What is the difference between the proposed owl:individualOf and rdf:type?

How do you propose to express owl:definitionOf in triples? What would
differentiate that from being a combination of owl:subClassOf (or
rdfs:subClassOf) and whatever triples one would need to express the
differentia.

What advantages does speciesOf have over a combination of owl:subClassOf (in
one direction) and the owl:inverseOf owl:subClassOf (in the opposite
direction) - is it intended to be a short hand for this?

Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 14:19:58 UTC