Re: Are literals owl:Things?

  On 10/14/2010 9:16 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>
> Another way of answering the question (which I would coin the 
> "model-theoretic view") is to ask:
>
> are the interpretations of a rdfs:Literal included in the 
> interpretations of owl:Thing?

The model theory is not an interoperability point. They help define the 
interoperability points - entailments etc
To compare the interpretation of some URI in one model theory with the 
interpretation of the same URI in some other model theory is a category 
error ( ... the beginning of madness ... )
Questions about RDF or OWL model theory, are, from the point of view of 
the Web user, about as well formed as questions about angels and pinheads.

===

The crucial part of
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/#Interpretations
is the phrase:
"disjoint with /Δ_I / "

my assertion is that this phrase is not externally visible - I haven't 
checked that.

I wonder if this was an unnecessary addition. i.e. that all interesting 
theorems about OWL follow even if that part of the defn is omitted.

Jeremy