- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:35:30 +0100
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I've begun my review of the owl reference document. An aspect about which I have an uncertain feeling of unease concerns the denotation of owl:Class. I would appreciate some guidance from the WG. Owl introduces a notion of owl:Class, distinct from rdfs:Class with the following rationale: [[ NOTE: owl:Class is defined as a subclass of rdfs:Class. The rationale for having a separate OWL class construct lies in the restrictions on OWL DL (and thus also on OWL Lite), which imply that not all RDFS classes are legal OWL DL classes. In OWL Full these restrictions do not exist and therefore owl:Class and rdfs:Class are the same there. ]] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/ What is bothering me is that the denotation of owl:Class seems to depend on what is processing it, and I guess I'm making the naive user assumption, that owl:Class denotes the same thing (horribly deep philosophical rathole opens in front of me) wherever its used i.e. either rdfs:Class rdfs:subClassOf owl:Class . is true in the 'real world' or its not. If its true, then why is owl:Class needed? If its false, why is OWL FULL asserting its true. So I guess the naive user assumption is wrong, or maybe I'm interpreting it naively. Perhaps owl:Class denotes the "principle class type of the processor that is processing this document". That seems pretty scary too. I guess I should assume that I'm out of my depth here. Can someone please explain in short simple words what owl:Class denotes and why its needed. Brian
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 08:34:49 UTC