Re: Are literals owl:Things?

On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 23:59 +0200, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> So the conclusion is that literals are not owl:Thing under the direct 
> (Description-Logics-based) semantics but are owl:Thing under the 
> RDF-based semantics. This might look like a significant problem but in
> practical case it seems that it does not affect much the 
> interoperability of DL and non-DL tools, as far as I can tell. 

I don't like statements like that.

It's like light being sometimes a wave, and sometimes a particle: I
don't accept that. I'm happy enough to say that light exhibits
properties of each, and depending on what you're doing and how you're
modelling things, it might be useful to ignore light's particle nature
or its wave nature. But that doesn't effect what light *is*.

Likewise, I'm happy to accept a statement like: literals are owl:Things,
but a DL-based reasoner will never come to the conclusion that they are.
Is that not a more reasonable description of the way things are in OWL?

Toby A Inkster

Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 15:59:53 UTC