- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:04:42 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Oh dear, I was hoping there was good reason for making the distinction. Can someone confirm Jeremy's view. If Jeremy is right, I can't avoid suggesting another comment: RDFCore has been advised that Owl would still work correctly if term owl:Class were replaced by rdfs:Class. RDFCore therefore requests that the term owl:Class be dropped and replaced by rdfs:Class as this helps clarify the relationship between OWL and RDF(S) and eliminates possible confusion caused by the introduction of unnecessary redundant terms. Brian At 19:43 25/04/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Brian: > > If its ok to feed only > > some of the semantics to a DL reasoner, why not stick to rdfs:Class but > let > > it have only a limited understanding of Class? > >I believe this statement is technically correct. > >i.e. globally replace owl:Class by rdfs:Class in OWL S&AS and everything >still >works. > >You cannot say owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class or the opposite in OWL >Lite and OWL DL so the need for this distinction is moot. > >Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2003 08:03:59 UTC