Re: Are literals owl:Things?

> Jeremy,
>
>
>
>> ===
>>
>> 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.
>
> This is a strict necessity in the DL-based semantics.  Perhaps it 
> would be possible to devise a description logic where datatypes and 
> classes can overlap but as far as I know, it's been very little 
> studied (maybe for some good reason which I don't know).

Oh.

Can you give an example of a false consequence of the system without the 
phrase, but otherwise identical to OWL 2 DL.

I thought it was only necessary because the primary literature had 
always made this assumption and no one particularly felt like 
challenging it.
It would be a silly risk to remove a phrase as probably superfluous ... 
If it is known to be necessary that is a different situation.

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 16:41:36 UTC